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 advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the transmission line into compliance with current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites and historic structures. Taller structures would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130186, Final EIS--432 pages, Appendices--394 pages, July 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+-+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+-+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2010). AN - 16379836; 15799 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 draft 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 draft 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. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS, see 10-0011F, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 130198, 49 pages, July 5, 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 National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379836?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON+%28DRAFT+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+%28DRAFT+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, Price, Utah; 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 - CASA DIABLO GEOTHERMAL ENERGY PROJECT, MONO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16379505; 15792 AB - PURPOSE: The development of additional geothermal resources near Mammoth Lakes in Mono County, California is proposed. ORNI 50, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ormat Nevada Inc., has submitted an application to the Bureau of Land Management to build and operate the Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project in the immediate vicinity of the existing Mammoth Pacific L.P. (MPLP) geothermal projects near the intersection of California State Route 203 and U.S. Highway 395. The proposed project would be located on Inyo National Forest lands and adjacent private lands within portions of federal geothermal leases CACA-11667, CACA-11672 and CACA-14408. Facilities would include a new 33-megawatt geothermal power plant, up to 16 new production/injection wells, multiple pipelines, and a 500-foot electric transmission line to interconnect the new power plant to the existing Southern California Edison substation at Substation Road. Each production well would range in depth from 1,600 to 2,000 feet below ground surface (bgs), and each new injection well would be drilled to approximately 2,500 feet bgs. Fourteen of the wells would be located in the Basalt Canyon Area and two wells would be located southeast of the proposed power plant east of U.S. Highway 395. Four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed project. Alternative 2 would locate the power plant and related facilities to the east of the existing MPLP geothermal complex power plant facilities. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, pipeline alignments in Basalt Canyon would be modified, the location of one well would be changed, and pipeline crossings would be placed underground to minimize potential effects on biological and cultural resources and to reduce visual effects. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), nine additional small diameter and two large diameter exploratory wells could be drilled as previously authorized. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The generation and delivery of geothermal-generated power to the California electrical grid would reduce dependency on fossil fuels. Operation of the Casa Diablo IV Project would be expected to displace over 89,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in short-term construction and long-term operational violations of air quality standards for ozone. The preferred alternative would disturb 76.4 acres of Jeffrey Pine forest and sagebrush scrub vegetation, and create 17.5 acres of new permanent impervious surface. Wildlife habitat loss, noise, or entrapment could affect special-status species including northern goshawk, greater sage-grouse, special-status bats, Sierra marten, and migratory birds. Historical, archaeological and paleontological resources could be affected. Noise would impact sensitive receptors and new facilities would change the visual character of the site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130191, Final EIS--806 pages, Appendices--661 pages, Comments with Attachments and Responses--4,480 pages, July 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-21 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Pipelines KW - Power Plants KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Inyo National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379505?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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=CASA+DIABLO+GEOTHERMAL+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MONO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CASA+DIABLO+GEOTHERMAL+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+MONO+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, Bishop, 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 - HOLLISTER UNDERGROUND MINE PROJECT, ELKO COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16379430; 15791 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an underground gold and silver mine in Elko County, Nevada is proposed. The Hollister Underground Mine Project is located within the Ivanhoe Mining District on the northern end of the Carlin Trend approximately 47 miles northwest of Elko and 64 miles northeast of Winnemucca, Nevada. Rodeo Creek Gold Inc. (RCG), a wholly owned subsidiary of Great Basin Gold Ltd., is proposing an expansion of its existing surface and underground exploration activities at the Hollister site and transition to full-scale underground mine production and associated support facilities. Key issues include potential impacts to cultural resources and resources important to Native Americans, water quantity and quality, air quality, and wildlife. The proposed action includes the following major components: continued and expanded surface and underground exploration activities; transition from underground exploration and bulk sampling activities to full-scale production of gold and silver underground mining operation; installation of the Hatter production shaft, raise, or ramp, as the geology of the area dictates; construction of a new 11.6-mile-long electric power transmission line and substation, including access routes; water discharge to Little Antelope Creek; construction of ancillary support facilities; and continued off-site processing of all ore. The project would extract 2.0 to 3.0 million tons of ore and generate 2.6 to 3.7 million tons of waste rock. The underground workings would extend 2,000 feet below ground surface to a bottom elevation of 4,570 feet above mean sea level. Water would be removed from the underground workings up to a rate of 1,100 gallons per minute (gpm) on a continuous basis for the 20-year mine life. Water then would be pumped to the surface and gravity-fed in an existing buried pipeline to the rapid infiltration basins or to the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge point on Little Antelope Creek. Under the proposed action, waste rock would be disposed of in the existing approved RCG waste rock storage facility (WRSF), in the West Pit, or as backfill in the underground mine workings. In addition to the proposed action and a No Action Alternative, this abbreviated final EIS considers an alternative transmission line route, an alternative WRSF, and an alternative which would include backfill of the production shaft and escapeway/ventilation raises after permanent cessation of mining activities. This alternative would enhance public safety by permanently eliminating the possibility of access. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with implementation of the backfill alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow mining operations for locatable minerals in accordance with applicable laws and contribute to economic activity in Elko County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The disturbance of 43.8 acres of sagebrush shrubland, 65.1 acres of grassland vegetation, and 8.1 acres of sparsely vegetated land would create potential for soil erosion and establishment of invasive plant species. The increase in groundwater pumping rates from 400 gpm to a maximum rate of 1,100 gpm would reduce flow in four spring complexes and associated stream flows on Antelope, Alkali and Squaw creeks with impacts to 12 acres of wetlands. Residual impacts would include long-term flow reductions at seeps and springs and along associated flow-dependent stream reaches. Water in the underground workings that is alkaline and contains elevated sulfate could exceed some thresholds for groundwater quality. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130190, Final EIS--199 pages, July 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EK/ES/13-9+1793 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Creeks KW - Exploration KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Wetlands 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/16379430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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=HOLLISTER+UNDERGROUND+MINE+PROJECT%2C+ELKO+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=HOLLISTER+UNDERGROUND+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 - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUBY PIPELINE PROJECT, WYOMING, UTAH, NEVADA, AND OREGON (ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION FINAL EIS OF JANUARY 2010). AN - 16379403; 15789 AB - PURPOSE: The Bureau of Land Management has adopted the final EIS issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in January 2010 for the Ruby Pipeline Project in Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, and Oregon. Ruby Pipeline, LLC filed an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the construction and operation of natural gas pipeline facilities which would connect exiting domestic natural gas supply in the Rocky Mountain region with demand in Nevada and on the West Coast. The application was approved on April 5, 2010. Construction began on July 31, 2010, and the pipeline was placed in service on July 28, 2011. The Ruby Pipeline, spanning 678 miles in length, is a 42-inch diameter, interstate natural gas pipeline that provides transportation service from Opal, Wyoming, to interconnections near Malin, Oregon. The project crosses about 368 miles of federal land. Four compressor stations are located along the pipeline: the Roberson Creek compressor station near Opal, Wyoming; the Wildcat Hills compressor station at milepost 172.5, near the quarter point of the pipeline in Box Elder County, Utah; the Wieland Flat compressor station near the halfway point of the pipeline, in Elko County, Nevada, north of the town of Elko; and the Desert Valley compressor station at milepost 476.4, near the three-quarter point of the pipeline, in Humboldt County, Nevada. Other project components include five meter stations containing interconnects to other pipeline systems, 44 mainline valves, 20 pig launchers or receivers, four new communication towers, and miscellaneous communications equipment installed at existing communication towers. The pipeline's expected capacity is 1.5 billion cubic feet per day. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The pipeline provides a reliable means of gas transportation service from suppliers in the Rocky Mountain region to consumers in Nevada as well as Washington, Oregon and northern California. Demand for natural gas is expected to increase over the next decade with consumption increasing from 21.7 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2006 to a peak value of 23.8 tcf in 2016. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Key concerns included pipeline crossings of more than 1,000 rivers and streams, water depletions from the Colorado River, potential impacts to federally listed fish species, disturbance of more than 8,700 acres of sagebrush habitat, and potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, raptors and other migratory birds. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717 f(c)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the FERC's final EIS, see epa=100001F, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 130188, Volume I--664 pages, Volume II--980 pages, Volume III--802 pages, July 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FERC/EIS-0232F KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Easements KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Municipal Services KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fremont National Forest KW - Nevada KW - Oregon KW - Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance KW - Natural Gas Act, Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379403?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&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=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON+%28ADOPTION+OF+THE+FEDERAL+ENERGY+REGULATORY+COMMISSION+FINAL+EIS+OF+JANUARY+2010%29.&rft.title=RUBY+PIPELINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING%2C+UTAH%2C+NEVADA%2C+AND+OREGON+%28ADOPTION+OF+THE+FEDERAL+ENERGY+REGULATORY+COMMISSION+FINAL+EIS+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; FERC N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 5, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUFFALO FIELD OFFICE PLANNING AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, CAMPBELL, JOHNSON, AND SHERIDAN COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 16379753; 15780 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Buffalo Field Office in north-central Wyoming are proposed. The planning area consists of 7.4 million acres of federal, state, and private land in Campbell, Johnson, and Sheridan counties. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 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 Resource Management Plan (RMP). 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. Four alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A (No Action Alternative), the BLM would continue to manage the planning area as one extensive recreation management area and allow livestock grazing on all but approximately 10,000 acres of the planning area. Current management includes seasonal and year-round restrictions for surface-disturbing activities in important big game habitat, as well as a 0.25-mile protective buffer for greater sage-grouse strutting grounds. Alternative B emphasizes the greatest protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for limited development. Alternative B would designate eight areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) and would implement the most restrictions on motorized vehicle use and mineral development. The BLM would manage the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) eligible and suitable segment of the Middle Fork Powder River to retain its free-flowing characteristics and outstandingly remarkable values if Congress denies its WSR nomination. A no surface occupancy (NSO) stipulation would be applied within 500 feet of riparian/wetland systems, aquatic habitats, and floodplains. Conservation of habitat for fish, wildlife, and special status species would be emphasized by extending seasonal wildlife restrictions for surface-disturbing activities and increasing restrictions and lek buffers for greater sage-grouse. Alternative C emphasizes resource uses by reducing conservation measures afforded to physical, biological, and heritage and visual resources. The BLM would open all federal coal lands (4.8 million acres) to coal exploration. No ACECs would be designated and the WSR eligible and suitable segment of the Middle Fork Powder River and wilderness study areas (WSAs) would be managed according to other resource programs outlined in this RMP, if not designated by Congress. Surface disturbance and mineral development would be allowed in six designated special recreation management areas (SRMAs). Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, balances protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for sustainable development. Land would be managed as eight SRMAs and three ACECs (35,451 acres). Roads would be evaluated in coordination with counties and other stakeholders for designation as national back country or scenic byways. The BLM would manage the WSR eligible and suitable segment of the Middle Fork Powder River to retain its free-flowing characteristics and outstanding remarkable values. Similarly, the BLM would manage WSAs to emphasize healthy ecosystems, opportunities for solitude, and primitive recreation regardless of Congressional designation. Additionally, the BLM would apply a controlled surface use (CSU) stipulation to any mineral lease within 500 feet of riparian/wetland systems and aquatic habitats, emphasize protection of fish and wildlife resources through the application of moderate resource constraints, and increase constraints on resource uses within a 0.6-mile buffer around leks in greater sage-grouse population core area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals and objectives for managing resources and resource uses in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Increased openness of areas to oil and gas development under Alternatives A, C, and D would bring more job opportunities, greater demand for community services, and greater tax revenues to local governments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weeds, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Impacts to wildlife would result from habitat loss and fragmentation. In addition, motorized vehicle use and recreation could lead to the abandonment of nest sites or home ranges. Cultural resources would continue to be affected by ground-disturbing activities, theft, and vandalism. Recreation, mining, timber harvesting, grazing, or road development may impact scenic values. Certain management actions may restrict access to salable mineral resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130179, Volume 1--570 pages, Volume 2--1,010 pages, Volume 3--721 pages, June 28, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/020+1610 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/16379753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-28&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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 28, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRANSWEST EXPRESS TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING, COLORADO, UTAH, AND NEVADA. AN - 16379366; 15781 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. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130180, Draft EIS--782 pages, Appendices--1,549 pages, June 28, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/021+5101 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/16379366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-28&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 the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 28, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIVERSIDE-CORONA FEEDER PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO AND RIVERSIDE COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16379390; 15772 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of an aquifer storage and recovery project, including new groundwater wells and a 28-mile pipeline, in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, California is proposed. The Riverside Corona Feeder (RCF) infrastructure would allow the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) to purchase State Water Project water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, store that water in the San Bernardino Groundwater Basin (also known as Bunker Hill), and extract the water from the basin when it is needed. The first and second phases of the proposed pipeline would also provide access to groundwater from the Chino Groundwater Basin in San Bernardino/Riverside counties. WMWD was formed in 1954 to bring supplemental water to growing western Riverside County and now serves roughly 24,000 retail and eight wholesale customers with water from the Colorado River, the State Water Project, and groundwater. As a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, WMWD provides supplemental water to the cities of Corona, Norco, a portion of Murietta, and Riverside and the water agencies of Box Springs Mutual, Eagle Valley Mutual, Elsinore Valley, Lee Lake, and Rancho California. WMWD also serves customers in the unincorporated areas of El Sobrante, Eagle Valley, Temescal Creek, Woodcrest, Lake Mathews, and March Air Reserve Base. An interconnected water distribution network and a reliable water supply are critical to meet the demands of these water customers. The proposed project would include a large capacity water pipeline up to 78 inches in diameter. Up to a total of 20 new and existing groundwater wells could be installed and utilized within the San Bernardino Groundwater Basin and existing recharge basins would be used to spread imported water in the basin. The project would be located primarily underground within existing road rights-of-way. The facilities are designed to deliver up to a maximum of 40,000 acre-feet per year; however, current modeling shows that the actual deliveries are anticipated to be between 6,000 and 9,000 acre-feet per year. Other components of the project include a new well field for five of the 20 wells, two additional pump stations, one five-million gallon reservoir, and connecting pipelines. The project currently includes the following segments and facilities from north to south: Central Feeder Connection, Northern Reach, Central Reach, Clay Street Connection, Mockingbird Connection (former Reach E), Reach F1, Reach G1, La Sierra Pipeline Connection, and Reach H. Three action/alignment alternatives and a No Action Alternative were considered in the draft EIS issued in January 2011. Under the preferred alternative, the Northern Reach would span from the intersection of Waterman Avenue and Orange Show Road in the City of San Bernardino to the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Clay Street in unincorporated Riverside County. The Central Reach would span from the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Clay Street to connect to the approved RCF alignment near the intersection of Jackson Street and Cleveland Street in the City of Riverside. This final EIS includes comments and responses to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process, as well as an annotated copy of the draft EIS. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is also included to ensure compliance during project implementation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RCF infrastructure would improve the reliability of WMWD's water supply through the managed storage and distribution of excess imported water, reduce possible water shortages during dry years, improve water quality, and reduce water costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would remove plants and trees, generate fugitive dust and emissions, disrupt traffic patterns, and potentially impact special status wildlife species including least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, arroyo toad, and Stephens' kangaroo rat. Possible open cut trenching in the Spring Brook drainage and Santa Ana River crossings could lead to loss of wetlands and impacts to special status plant species. The proposed pipeline would pass in close proximity to numerous hazardous waste sites. Potential adverse impacts to groundwater levels and groundwater quality in both the San Bernardino and Chino basins are expected to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 130171, Final EIS--309 pages, Annotated draft EIS--594 pages, June 21, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wells KW - California KW - Santa Ana River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIVERSIDE-CORONA+FEEDER+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+AND+RIVERSIDE+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RIVERSIDE-CORONA+FEEDER+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+AND+RIVERSIDE+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, Temecula, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 21, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-14 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Friant water users get another 5 percent AN - 1368121556 AB - Currently, precipitation in the upper San Joaquin River watershed at Huntington Lake is about 20.5 inches, which is about 49 percent of average for this time of year. Additionally, accumulated natural river flow to date or the Upper San Joaquin Basin is about 766,000 acre-feet, which is about 57 percent of the historical average for this date, and about 43 percent of the total Water Year average of 1.8 million acre-feet. JF - Western Farm Press AU - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AD - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Y1 - 2013/06/17/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Jun 17 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1368121556?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Friant+water+users+get+another+5+percent&rft.au=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aulast=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 17, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH DAKOTA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN. AN - 16390171; 15766 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) South Dakota Field Office are proposed. The planning area covered by the resource management plan (RMP) covers the entire state of South Dakota, which includes approximately 49.3 million acres of public, private, and state lands, and Native American reservations. The BLM administers 274,000 acres of surface estate most of which is in Harding, Butte, Lawrence, Pennington, Custer, Fall River, Perkins, Meade, Ziebach, and Jackson counties. The BLM manages 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 is located in the western part of the state. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Four alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue management under the existing 1986 South Dakota RMP. The BLM would continue to manage the Fort Meade Recreation Area and Fossil Cycad Area as areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Under Alternative A, 103,033 surface and 798,690 oil and gas mineral acres would be open to leasing without restrictions other than standard terms and conditions. Locatable federal minerals under the Fort Meade ACEC and Fossil Cycad ACEC would be recommended for continued withdrawal. Leasable federal minerals under the Fort Meade ACEC and oil and gas under the Fossil Cycad ACEC would continue to be closed. Motorized travel would be limited to existing roads on 264,706 acres and limited to designated routes on 7,046 acres. Livestock grazing would be allowed on about 271,000 acres. Alternative B would emphasize commercial use while providing the minimum protection necessary to protect physical, biological, cultural and visual resources. This alternative would provide for a moderate level of development of mineral resources, but 83,744 surface acres and 253,357 oil and gas mineral acres would be managed as greater sage-grouse protection priority areas (PPAs). Alternative C would emphasize conservation of resources by creating the largest PPAs for sage-grouse, the most stringent wildlife restrictions for surface-disturbing activities, more right-of-way exclusion areas, and expanded protective buffers for wildlife habitat. Alternative D is the preferred alternative and would provide more specific direction to protect resources and manage resource uses than Alternative A. Stipulations would not be limited to oil and gas production and could be applied to other resource uses. Approximately 52,803 surface and 461,747 oil and gas mineral acres would be open to leasing without restrictions other than standard terms and conditions. Locatable federal minerals under the Fort Meade ACEC (6,574 acres), Fossil Cycad ACEC (320 acres), and Bear Butte National Historic Landmark (410 acres) would be recommended for withdrawal, while leasable federal minerals and salable federal minerals would be closed. Under this alternative, 83,744 surface acres and 253,357 oil and gas mineral acres would be managed as sage-grouse PPAs and all other sage-grouse habitat and use areas would be managed as general habitat. Motorized travel would be limited to existing roads on 143,528 acres and limited to designated routes on 128,224 acres (travel management areas and ACECs). This alternative would restrict snowmobile use to designated roads and trails within the Black Hills in the exemption area, but would allow such use on the prairie except in the Fort Meade ACEC where snowmobile use would be prohibited under all alternatives. Livestock grazing would be allowed on about 272,000 acres; and domestic sheep grazing would be prohibited within 15 miles of bighorn sheep range. High value resources including important wildlife habitat would be avoidance areas for renewable energy development. In addition, the current National Register of Historic Places nomination for the Fort Meade Historic District site boundary would be revised to incorporate an additional 3,370 acres inside the original military reservation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would provide goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or restore resource conditions and to provide for long-term benefits to the public, including economic needs of local communities. In addition, the RMP revision would incorporate appropriate management actions and practices to conserve sage-grouse and its habitat on BLM-administered land. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts to sites developed for public use. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. Management actions could affect recreational resources and travel across public lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130165, Draft EIS--947 pages, Appendices--264 pages, June 14, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-13/011+1610 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 - Wildlife 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/16390171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+DAKOTA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&rft.title=SOUTH+DAKOTA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN.&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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 14, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NISOURCE MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN, APPLICATION FOR INCIDENTAL TAKE PERMIT, EASTERN UNITED STATES. AN - 16389913; 15767 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a permit for the incidental take of 10 federally listed species over a 50-year period across the 14-state operating territory of NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage, Inc. (NiSource) is proposed. The covered lands would include a one-mile wide corridor centered on NiSources existing pipeline right-of-way (ROW), 12 counties with well storage fields, and ancillary interstate natural gas transmission facilities in 14 eastern states: Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. NiSource conducts over 400 projects every year to repair, upgrade, replace, and expand their natural gas transmission pipeline facilities and these projects are often in or near endangered or threatened species habitats. The proposed permit would authorize take of eight endangered species (Indiana bat, clubshell mussel, fanshell mussel, James spinymussel, northern riffleshell mussel, sheepnose mussel, American burying beetle, and Nashville crayfish); and two threatened species (bog turtle and Madison cave isopod). The NiSource natural gas transmission pipeline system includes 15,562 miles of buried pipe, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains 36 underground natural gas storage fields comprised of approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York. Approximately 95 percent of NiSources projects will occur within its existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide) and result in little ground disturbance. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative 2 is the proposed issuance of a 50-year permit and approval of the HCP covering 9.8 million acres of land in 14 states. Alternative 3 would involve issuance of a permit for a 10-year term. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The permit and HCP would provide protection and conservation of certain listed species while enabling NiSource to conduct legally authorized activities. Construction and expansion, general operation and maintenance activities that do not require excavation or significant earth disturbance, and safety-related repairs, replacements, and maintenance could be performed without the necessity of coming to the Fish and Wildlife Service for each individual project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The annual average disturbance from operations and maintenance activities and new construction is estimated at approximately 19,000 acres, but 18,000 of these impacted acres would be on previously disturbed land. NiSources future activities would potentially impact listed and non-listed fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds. Impacts could include: direct mortality from vehicle traffic, vegetation maintenance or mowing; noise-related impacts from construction; habitat degradation from construction; or habitat loss due to impacts to aquatic resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130166, Final EIS--543 pages, Appendices--845 pages, Habitat Conservation Plan--511 pages, June 14, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Insects KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Shellfish KW - Storage KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Delaware KW - Indiana KW - Kentucky KW - Louisiana KW - Maryland KW - Mississippi KW - New Jersey KW - New York KW - North Carolina KW - Ohio KW - Pennsylvania KW - Tennessee KW - Virginia KW - West Virginia KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16389913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.title=NISOURCE+MULTI-SPECIES+HABITAT+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+APPLICATION+FOR+INCIDENTAL+TAKE+PERMIT%2C+EASTERN+UNITED+STATES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 14, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-10-04 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GUADALUPE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL PARK, CULBERSON AND HUDSPETH COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16390134; 15759 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a revised general management plan (GMP) for the 86,416-acre Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson and Hudspeth counties, Texas is proposed. The park includes the Guadalupe Mountains that rise more than 3,000 feet above the Chihuahuan Desert that surrounds them. The mountains are part of a 400-mile-long horseshoe-shaped fossilized reef formation known as the Capitan Reef that extends through a large area of west Texas and southwestern New Mexico. Three internationally significant stratotypes can be found in the park. The mountains' cultural history includes native peoples and a successive wave of European and American explorers. The original GMP for Guadalupe Mountains National Park went into effect in 1976 and has not been significantly updated. In 1978, Congress designated 46,850 acres within the park as wilderness; and in 1988 the park was expanded by 10,123 acres to include significant resources to the west of the original boundary. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative would emphasize wilderness values and restoration of natural ecosystem processes while expanding recreational opportunities for visitors via a variety of settings. Enhanced interpretation measures would include expansion of visitor facilities and services at the Pine Springs visitor center. New administration facilities would be constructed and a campground would be developed. Facilities and activities would be expanded and improved at other sites throughout the park. Under Alternative B, park management would emphasize the promotion of wilderness values and the restoration of natural ecosystem processes. Campsites and horse corrals would be closed and the affected sites vegetated. A limited amount of new construction would primarily support resource protection. Improvements in interpretation would be less extensive than under the preferred alternative. Alternative C would expand opportunities for visitors to enjoy a wide range of park settings. New park access and facility improvements would provide activities, interpretation, and visitor gateways to the interior of the park from the south, west, and north as well as recreation opportunities for more diverse visitor groups and improved administrative facilities. One-time capital cost for implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $9.6 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $2.9 million, which remains within the 2008 base budget. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Management under the preferred alternative would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment and adapt to changing user group needs, while protecting cultural values and ecosystem diversity. Emphasis on wilderness values within the park would result in the restoration and preservation of natural ecosystem processes. The range of over-night and multi-day destination opportunities would increase visitation and boost local and regional economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Approximately 100 acres of currently undeveloped land would be developed for park facility siting. Construction on this pristine land would degrade cultural and natural resources and displace vegetation and the associated wildlife habitat. Increased visitation at the park would increase incidental disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), P.L. 89-667, and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0192D, Volume 32, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 130158, 438 pages, June 7, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Land Management KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Guadalupe Mountains National Park KW - Texas KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - P.L. 89-667, Project Authorization KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390134?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=GUADALUPE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+CULBERSON+AND+HUDSPETH+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, Salt Flat, Texas; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - KLAMATH FACILITIES REMOVAL, KLAMATH BASIN, SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND KLAMATH COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16390098; 15752 AB - PURPOSE: The removal of four hydroelectric dams on the main stem of the Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California, is proposed. The Klamath Hydroelectric Project was constructed between 1911 and 1962 and includes eight developments: the East and West Side power facilities, and Keno, J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, Fall Creek, and Iron Gate Dams. All of the dams, excluding Link River Dam, are owned by PacifiCorp. Link River Dam is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation, but operated by PacifiCorp for regulating flows and storing water in Upper Klamath Lake for irrigation use in Reclamations Klamath Project. Keno Dam regulates water levels of the Klamath River upstream of the dam and does not include power-generating equipment. PacifiCorp operates the dam under an agreement with Reclamation to maintain stable water levels in Keno Impoundment/Lake Ewauna for consistent water delivery to dependent water users. The proposed dam removals are part of the Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement (KHSA), which is one part of a basin-wide approach to address continuing unresolved problems resulting from overstressed water supplies and water quality concerns in the Klamath Basin, including impacts to basin fisheries. The KHSA was signed by representatives of 45 organizations including federal agencies, the states of California and Oregon, PacifiCorp, Indian tribes, counties, irrigators, and conservation and fishing groups in order to address one of the most economically, environmentally, and culturally devastating water disputes in the western United States. The Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement (KBRA), as well as the transfer of Keno Dam, are analyzed as a connected action in this final EIS. The KBRA is also a basin-wide approach to addressing the current resources challenges and will be signed by the United States upon congressional authorization. The PacifiCorp Klamath Hydroelectric Project generates 716,800 megawatt-hours of electricity annually, but the dams are affecting salmonid fisheries by blocking up to 420 miles of potential river habitat, changing downstream water quality, and altering flows in sections of the mainstem of the river. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), have been analyzed. The proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would involve the removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2, and Iron Gate dams during a 20-month period which would include an eight-month period of site preparation and partial drawdown at Copco 1 and a 12-month period for full drawdown and removal of facilities. The dams, power generation facilities, water intake structures, canals, pipelines, ancillary buildings, and dam foundations would be completely removed to create a free-flowing river. Preparation for dam removal would begin in May 2019 for Iron Gate Dam and June 2019 for Copco 1 Dam. Deconstruction efforts for the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 facilities would commence after January 1, 2020, and all four dams would be completely removed by December 31, 2020. Alternative 3 would involve removal of enough of each dam to allow free-flowing river conditions and volitional fish passage for all Klamath River anadromous species at all times. Portions of each dam facility would remain in place, including ancillary buildings and structures. Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would include implementation of KBRA and the transfer of Keno Dam to the Department of the Interior. Alternative 4 would include construction of fish passage facilities at each of the four dams while retaining all hydropower generating facilities and operations. Under Alternative 5, the facilities at Iron Gate and Copco 1 would be fully removed and upstream and downstream fish passage facilities would be installed at both the J.C. Boyle and Copco 2 dams. The KHSA sets a cost cap of $450 million for removal of the four facilities. Of this, an amount not to exceed $200 million would come from additional charges to PacifiCorp ratepayers and up to $250 million would come from the sale of bonds in California or other means deemed appropriate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal and a watershed-wide restoration program could increase salmon harvests in the river and ocean, eliminate toxic algae blooms in reservoirs, and restore more normal water temperatures for salmon in the Klamath River. The dam removals would not have any direct impact on water supplies in the basin as these facilities do not provide storage for irrigation uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dam removal would require replacement of about 716,800 megawatt-hours, most likely by more expensive electricity sources, and could result in small increases in long-term flood risks and a short-term effect on juvenile fish populations from the release of sediment built up behind the project dams. Dam removal also would eliminate some recreational opportunities on drained Klamath reservoirs, reduce whitewater rafting opportunities, and decrease property values of some landowners. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920 (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 130151, Final EIS--2,092 pages, Appendices--971 pages, Responses to Comments--9,295 pages, June 7, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Dams KW - Demolition KW - Economic Assessments KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrology KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Klamath River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=KLAMATH+FACILITIES+REMOVAL%2C+KLAMATH+BASIN%2C+SISKIYOU+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+KLAMATH+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 7, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NEWLANDS PROJECT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHOE, STOREY, LYON, AND CHURCHILL COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 16379697; 15757 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing 442,000 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Reclamation within the Newlands Project planning area in Washoe, Storey, Lyon, and Churchill counties, Nevada are proposed. The Newlands Project provides irrigation water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers for cropland in the Lahontan Valley near Fallon and benchlands near Fernley in western Nevada through a series of diversions, canals, dams, and reservoirs. The planning area is composed of all Reclamation-administered lands, including waterbodies, managed as part of the Newlands Project. While Reclamation possesses state permits to store water in its reservoirs, it does not own any water rights in the Newlands Project. Water policy is conducted through a contract with the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District and is excluded from this resource management plan (RMP). Planning issues include ensuring reliable irrigation; noxious and invasive plant species control; management of livestock grazing; recreation management; watershed and water quality protection; public health and safety; and management of oil and gas, mineral, geothermal, mill site, and renewable energy resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative B, which is the proposed action and preferred alternative, would balance the demand for limited resources and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values found in the planning area. Energy development and locatable minerals activities would be restricted near Newland Project facilities, roads, trails, crops, streams, recreation developments, rights-of-way, or irrigation facilities. Locatable mining operations would also be restricted in flood zones and wildlife management areas. Mineral development would be prohibited in wetlands and riparian habitat. Transportation management actions would close some roads and restrict public access to other roads. A grazing management plan would balance grazing with restoration of land health in grazing areas. The plan would include decision criteria concerning allotment boundaries, length of leases and renewals, lease terms and conditions, fees, management during extreme conditions (e.g., droughts and fires), and the need for maintaining sustainable rangeland health and protecting sensitive habitats. Alternative C would deemphasize recreation, access, and mineral and energy development goals in favor of natural resource values. Off-road vehicle use would be completely prohibited and all grazing on Reclamation-administered lands would be phased out and eliminated within two years. Rangeland improvements would be removed where appropriate and where the improvements are no longer needed. Degraded rangelands would be identified for revegetation and restoration. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide a single, comprehensive land use plan that will guide contemporary resource and recreation needs of the federal lands administered by Reclamation in the Newlands Project planning area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Livestock would continue to have the potential to compact soils, to impact biological soil crusts, and to contribute to erosion and siltation. Implementation of rangeland health standards would result in increased costs to grazing permittees. Additionally, some pastures would be closed permanently or temporarily. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). JF - EPA number: 130156, Draft EIS--408 pages, Grazing Management Plan--42 pages, June 7, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Grazing KW - Irrigation KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Reclamation Recreation Management Act of 1992, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NEWLANDS+PROJECT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHOE%2C+STOREY%2C+LYON%2C+AND+CHURCHILL+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=NEWLANDS+PROJECT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHOE%2C+STOREY%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 Reclamation, Carson City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: June 7, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-19 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Klamath Project not likely to jeopardize critical habitat AN - 1364532472 AB - The Bureau of Reclamation announces the receipt of a joint, coordinated Biological Opinion delivered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. JF - Western Farm Press AU - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AD - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Y1 - 2013/06/04/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Jun 04 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1364532472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Klamath+Project+not+likely+to+jeopardize+critical+habitat&rft.au=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aulast=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-06-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jun 4, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-04 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Bureau of Indian Education 2011-2012 (Based on SY 2010-2011 Data) Revised 06/01/2013 Special Education Indicator Performance AN - 1697501673; ED553999 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 - 2013/06/01/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Jun 01 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 - Special Education KW - Suspension KW - Educational Indicators KW - Dropout Rate KW - Student Participation KW - Benchmarking KW - School Statistics KW - Outcomes of Education KW - Educational Benefits KW - Expulsion KW - Disabilities KW - Transitional Programs KW - Parent Participation KW - Mathematics Tests KW - School Effectiveness 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/1697501673?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND DITCH BREACH RESTORATION, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16375392; 15745 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of natural hydrological processes, ecological services, and wilderness character of the area impacted by the 2003 Grand Ditch breach in Rocky Mountain National Park, Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The Grand Ditch is a 15-mile water diversion canal that runs along the eastern slope of the Never Summer Range within the Kawuneeche Valley, part of the uppermost portion of the Colorado River watershed. The breach saturated an adjacent hillslope which gave way, creating a debris flow that sent an estimated 47,600 cubic yards of mud, rocks, and trees cascading down into Lulu Creek and the headwaters of the Colorado River. The damaged areas comprise about 22 acres and include upland, stream, riparian, and wetland habitats. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would involve minimal restoration focusing actions on areas that are unstable and present a high potential of continued degradation. Management activities would be conducted using hand tools to reduce impact on wilderness character. Alternative C, high restoration, would focus actions on areas that present a high to moderate potential of continued degradation. Restoration methods would be used to stabilize banks, slopes, and disturbed areas and to lessen the availability of breach debris and sediments to the system over a larger portion of the project area. This alternative would involve the use of heavy equipment and possibly reusing excavated debris for restoration and stabilization actions. Alternative D, the preferred alternative, would emphasize the removal of large debris deposits in the alluvial fan area and in the Lulu City wetland. Actions would be conducted to stabilize limited areas of unstable slopes and banks throughout the upper portions of the restoration area. Hydrology through the Lulu City wetland would be restored in the historical central channel through removal of large deposits of debris, relying on the historical channel to transport river flow. Small-scale motorized equipment would be employed for stabilization and revegetation activities, while larger equipment would be employed for excavation of large debris deposits and reconfiguration of the Colorado River through the Lulu City wetland. This alternative would include stabilization of the roadcut hillside immediately below the Grand Ditch with a tie-back anchoring system to stabilize the slope. Alternative E, maximum restoration, would involve extensive recontouring and stabilization of debris deposits along banks and slopes to approximate pre-breach contours and to reduce transport of sediments over a larger portion of the impacted area. Extensive changes would be made to both the existing and historical Colorado River channels and a temporary haul road would be constructed to facilitate movement of heavy mechanized equipment and excavated debris from the wetland to upland disposal areas. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Restoration of hydrological processes, ecological services, and wilderness character would benefit special status species, cultural resources, and visitor use and experience in the long term. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration activities and the use of mechanized equipment would result in short-term, adverse impacts on natural soundscape, wilderness, water resources, wetlands, visitor use and experience, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130144, 638 pages, May 31, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bank Protection KW - Creeks KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Hydrology KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Rocky Mountain National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRAND+DITCH+BREACH+RESTORATION%2C+ROCKY+MOUNTAIN+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRAND+DITCH+BREACH+RESTORATION%2C+ROCKY+MOUNTAIN+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Estes Park, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 31, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DOMINGUEZ-ESCALANTE NATIONAL CONSERVATION AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, DELTA, MESA, AND MONTROSE COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 16392145; 15734 AB - PURPOSE: A resource management plan (RMP) for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) in Delta, Mesa and Montrose counties, Colorado is proposed. The planning area consists of 218,000 acres of land which includes 210,000 acres of public lands and resources managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Grand Junction and Uncompahgre Field Offices. The Dominguez-Escalante NCA was designated in 2009 and withdrawals preclude federal mineral development within the area. It includes the 66,280-acre Dominguez Canyon Wilderness, an array of ecosystems, ranging from saltdesert shrub vegetation nearest the Gunnison River, to mid-elevation pinyon-juniper woodlands, to aspen and Douglas-fir forests at higher elevations. This Wilderness Area possesses outstanding geological features and ecological diversity, spectacular scenery that includes two cascading mountain streams, and habitat that supports a wide range of wildlife. The Lower Gunnison River is popular for overnight camping and boating and also contains critical habitat for sensitive native fish. The planning area includes segments of the congressionally designated Old Spanish National Historic Trail and two designated areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, the BLM would rely on natural processes and restriction of allowable uses to conserve and protect resources. Portions of the Gunnison River and Cottonwood Creek would be managed as suitable for Wild and Scenic River (WSR) designation. ACEC designations would be dropped, and no new designations would be sought. Travel routes that conflict with resource protection goals, as well as redundant and dead-end routes, would be closed and allowed to naturally rehabilitate. Under Alternative C, the BLM would actively manage for biological restoration and cultural resource protection. A variety of vegetation treatments would be used to achieve ambitious biological objectives. Two areas would be managed as nonmotorized special recreation management areas (SRMAs). Livestock grazing would be intensively managed to help improve the condition of biological resources. All eligible WSR segments would be managed as suitable for WSR designation. The BLM would designate two new ACECs and continue management of the Escalante Canyon ACEC. A large number of travel routes would be closed and rehabilitated. Under Alternative D, the BLM would commit to trail-based recreation and would designate nine new SRMAs, including two motorized trail-based SRMAs and two nonmotorized trail-based SRMAs. In managing natural and biological resources, the BLM would focus on active restoration, but goals would be less ambitious than with Alternative C. The Wilderness would be split into three management zones and more lands would be opened for livestock grazing than are currently allocated. Under Alternative D, all eligible WSR segments would be dropped from suitability consideration. The BLM would designate two new ACECs and expand both existing ACECs to protect sensitive resources. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, includes objectives for biological resources that are more ambitious than those in Alternative D but less ambitious than those in Alternative C. Management of the Wilderness would be similar to management under Alternative D, with each of three zones managed with a different emphasis. Livestock grazing management would include components of both Alternative C and Alternative D. Regarding recreation management, the BLM would designate four SRMAs. The rest of the Dominguez-Escalante NCA outside of the Wilderness would be designated as extensive recreation management areas. Under Alternative E, one WSR segment on Cottonwood Creek would be managed as suitable for WSR designation. One new ACEC would be established, and the BLM would continue to manage one existing ACEC. The second-largest number of miles of routes would be open to the public under this alternative (second only to Alternative A). Redundant and dead-end routes would be closed and rehabilitated to return them to a more natural state. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP would address increased demand for recreation and educational opportunities while ensuring that the Dominguez-Escalante NCA is managed as a single unit for long-term conservation and protection of unique and important values. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future adverse impacts on soil resources would result from surface disturbance associated with travel and transportation, recreation, livestock grazing, alteration of native/desirable vegetation communities, land use authorizations, and planned fire, unplanned fire, and certain fire suppression tactics. Surface-disturbing activities could impact paleontological resources. Motorized and mechanized travel on designated routes could result in degradation of wilderness characteristics. In addition, maintenance of range improvements could result in short-term impacts on solitude and apparent naturalness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11). JF - EPA number: 130133, 1,031 pages, May 24, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CO/GI-13/001 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Paleontological Sites 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 KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Dominguez Canyon Wilderness KW - Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area KW - Gunnison River 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/16392145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DOMINGUEZ-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=DOMINGUEZ-ESCALANTE+NATIONAL+CONSERVATION+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+DELTA%2C+MESA%2C+AND+MONTROSE+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 24, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-10 ER - TY - GEN T1 - U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education State Performance Plan. SPP Template-Part B. Revised May 17, 2013 AN - 1697501620; ED554006 AB - The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds schools located on 63 reservations in 23 states across the nation. Of the 183 schools, 59 are Bureau operated and 124 are tribally controlled. One-hundred and sixteen schools provide instructional programs, 55 provide instructional as well as boarding services and 12 peripheral dormitories provide only boarding services (these students attend the local public schools). Seven schools are Off Reservation Boarding Schools (ORBS) that provide both instructional and boarding facilities to students from many different states. The BIE is not a school system organized into districts as are the majority of the states. The 184 Bureau funded schools are organized under 22 Education Line Offices. The smallest line office has two schools providing academic services and one boarding facility where the students receive their academic services in a public school. The largest line office serves 16 schools. In the BIE, schools are also meeting the reporting requirements of the LEA. This difference is greater than just terminology in that the Education Line Officers do not have the same line authority over the LEA/schools in their line office as do district superintendents in the public school system. The definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) that all BIE funded schools will follow is that of the state in which the school is located (25 CFR 30.104). This has been an important factor in the development of the State Performance Plan (SPP) due to the fact that there are significant variances between states in expectations for many indicators such as graduation rates, achievement cut scores, attendance and others. With the need to align targets with ESEA reporting and the need to use common standards and measures wherever possible the SPP targets are often written in a format that allows adjustment for the expectations of the state in which the school is located. This 2012 revision of the State Performance Plan (SPP) aligns reporting with what is used to report under the ESEA. Y1 - 2013/05/17/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 May 17 SP - 83 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - Federal Aid KW - Improvement Programs KW - Scores KW - Measurement Techniques KW - Reading Achievement KW - Tribally Controlled Education KW - Transitional Programs KW - Disabilities KW - Federal Programs KW - Educational Planning KW - Statistical Data KW - American Indian Education KW - Individualized Education Programs KW - Measurement Objectives KW - Graduation Rate KW - Progress Monitoring KW - Program Descriptions KW - State Policy KW - State Programs KW - Institutional Characteristics KW - Suspension KW - Language Proficiency KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Dropout Rate KW - Student Participation KW - Language Arts KW - Benchmarking KW - Expulsion KW - Enrichment Activities KW - Parent Participation KW - Parent Attitudes KW - Administrative Organization KW - Strategic Planning UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697501620?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Annual Performance Report. Bureau of Indian Education FFY 2011. Revised Clarification, May 17, 2013. APR Template-Part B AN - 1697501614; ED554028 AB - During SY 2011-2012, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) continued their efforts to improve the validity and reliability of data reporting. BIE data collections are dependent on school level entry (self-reporting) into the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) or into the BIE's Annual Report from the schools. In addition, data is gathered and analyzed through the Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process (SEIMP) conducted annually. Through on-site activities, annual conferences, and webinar training sessions, schools have increased their level of understanding of data requirements and analysis. The BIE aligns reporting requirements with ESEA. The BIE oversees a total of 172 elementary and secondary schools, located on 64 reservations in 23 states. Of these, 59 are BIE-operated and 113 are Tribally-operated under BIE contracts or grants. 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 met on January 24-25, 2013 in Albuquerque, New Mexico, 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. Y1 - 2013/05/17/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 May 17 SP - 82 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - American Indian Reservations KW - Reading Tests KW - Special Education KW - Improvement Programs KW - Educational Administration KW - Parent Surveys KW - Error Correction KW - Student Placement KW - Measurement Techniques KW - Tribally Controlled Education KW - Transitional Programs KW - Mathematics Tests KW - Educational Resources KW - Data Collection KW - American Indian Education KW - Data Analysis KW - Measurement Objectives KW - Graduation Rate KW - Program Descriptions KW - State Action KW - Suspension KW - Educational Indicators KW - Dropout Rate KW - Student Participation KW - Language Arts KW - Benchmarking KW - Annual Reports KW - Educational Improvement KW - Expulsion KW - Enrichment Activities KW - Educational Practices KW - School Effectiveness UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697501614?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOHAVE COUNTY WIND FARM PROJECT, MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16375292; 15727 AB - PURPOSE: A right-of-way grant for the construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of a wind energy facility in the White Hills area of northwestern Mohave County, Arizona is proposed. BP Wind Energy North America Inc. submitted an application for the Mohave County Wind Farm Project which would occupy 38,099 acres of public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 8,960 acres of land managed by the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). The proposed project site is located about 40 miles northwest of Kingman, Arizona, and just south of Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA). Project features would include, but not be limited to, turbines aligned within corridors, access roads, an operations and maintenance building, two temporary laydown/staging areas, temporary and permanent meteorological towers, two substations, and electrical collector lines and a transmission line to bring the power to the switchyard that would be operated by the Western Area Power Administration. The switchyard would interconnect to one of the two high-voltage transmission lines that pass through the site to tie the power generated into the electrical grid. The power generation capacity is proposed to be 425 megawatts (MW) of power if the project interconnects to the 345-kilovolt (kV) Liberty-Mead transmission line and 500 MW if the project interconnects to the 500-kV Mead-Phoenix transmission line. A three-mile long access road would be constructed between US Highway 93 and the wind farm site. Five alternatives, including No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative A is the proposed action and would support development of 203 to 283 turbines depending on the turbine size chosen. Alternative B would involve construction on a reduced site footprint encompassing 30,872 acres of BLM-managed land and 3,848 acres of land managed by Reclamation. Under Alternative C, the facility would occupy a reduced site footprint that encompasses 30,178 acres of BLM-managed land and 5,124 acres of land managed by Reclamation. The agency-preferred alternative (Alternative E) combines elements of Alternatives A and B and is based on: 1) concerns for golden eagle breeding areas; 2) concerns for visual and noise impacts on Lake Mead NRA; and 3) concerns for visual and noise impacts on existing residences. Alternative E would involve construction on a site footprint that encompasses 35,329 acres of BLM-managed land and 2,781 acres of land managed by Reclamation. This alternative could support development of 179 turbines, and no more than 243 turbines would be installed. Depending on the turbine model used, the turbine blades would be between 390 feet and 539 feet above the ground at the top of their arc. Construction would take 12 to 18 months and once completed, the wind energy facility is planned to operate year round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A wind energy facility located on the slopes of the White Hills would take advantage of a unique combination of sufficient wind resource, good physical access, and suitable transmission access to help Arizona meet established renewable energy portfolio standards. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would generate emissions and could result in soil erosion and introduction of noxious weeds. Temporary and long-term loss of habitat from vegetation clearing and soil disturbance would primarily affect species inhabiting creosote scrub. Short-term surface disturbance of 1,317 acres could reduce or degrade desert tortoise and banded Gila monster habitat. Resident and migratory birds could be injured or killed by colliding with turbines and other facilities; however the risk is considered to be low. One prehistoric site determined as eligible for the National Register could be affected by siting of the turbines. Nearby planned or existing residential land uses and some Lake Mead NRA land could be exposed to limited operational noise levels. Impacts would result from the introduction of structures characterized by strong visual contrast against the existing landscape during both day and night. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130126, Final EIS--548 pages, Appendices--439 pages, May 17, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-13/003 KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Erosion KW - Noise KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Mojave Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOHAVE+COUNTY+WIND+FARM+PROJECT%2C+MOHAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=MOHAVE+COUNTY+WIND+FARM+PROJECT%2C+MOHAVE+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 - 2013-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 17, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-09-10 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reclamation again cuts CVP Friant allocation AN - 1350817474 AB - Currently, precipitation in the Upper San Joaquin River watershed at Huntington Lake is about 20.4 inches, which is about 51 percent of average for this time of year. Additionally, accumulated natural river flow to date for Water Year 2013 for the Upper San Joaquin Basin is about 600,000 acre-feet, which is about 67 percent of the historical average for this date, and about 33 percent of the total water year average of 1.8 million acre-feet. JF - Western Farm Press AU - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AD - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Y1 - 2013/05/14/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 May 14 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1350817474?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Reclamation+again+cuts+CVP+Friant+allocation&rft.au=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aulast=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. May 14, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST BAY HILLS HAZARDOUS FIRE RISK REDUCTION, ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16389934; 15715 AB - PURPOSE: Funding for vegetation management activities designed to reduce wildfire hazard and risk in 105 defined project areas in the East Bay Hills and at the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline in Alameda and Contra Costa counties, California is proposed. Vegetation management work in 60 of the 105 project areas was proposed in four grant applications submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by the University of California, Berkeley (UCB), the City of Oakland, and East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) through the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA). The remaining 45 project areas are adjacent or nearby areas in which EBRPD plans to do similar vegetation management work. While not included in the grant applications, these are considered connected actions. The East Bay Hills contain many densely built residential neighborhoods of mostly single-family homes but also include large tracts of open space and wildlands managed by EBRPD, UCB, Oakland, and the East Bay Municipal Utilities District. One hundred of the project areas are in the East Bay Hills, and the remaining five areas are in Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline, a facility of the EBRPD on San Francisco Bay. The East Bay Hills and the vicinity of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline have hot and dry fall seasons, wind-conducive topography, flammable vegetation, dense development, and limited accessibility for firefighting. The proposed action would be implemented on land owned by UCB and Oakland and within 11 parks owned and maintained by EBRPD. The connected actions would occur in seven of the 11 parks. The proposed projects would include the removal of non-native trees (primarily eucalyptus, Monterey pine, and acacia), chipping cut trees, and leaving many of the chips in place for sediment and invasive weed control. Herbicides would be applied to the cut stumps to prevent resprouting. Additional activities may include: use of large logs to control erosion on slopes; thinning or removal of native vegetation such as coyote brush in some areas; pile burning of cut brush and branches; and further control measures such as grazing or herbicide spraying on foliage. No spraying of foliage would occur within 60 feet of standing or flowing water or where herbicide might drift to water courses. The UCB projects comprise approximately 99 acres in Claremont and Strawberry Canyons. The City of Oakland would conduct work on 123 acres of City property in the Caldecott Tunnel and North Hills-Skyline areas; on 52 acres in three regional parks managed by EBRPD; and on 185 acres of land owned by UCB. EBRPD proposes to treat approximately 540 acres spread over 11 regional parks. These include: Sobrante Ridge Regional Preserve; Wildcat Canyon Regional Park; Tilden Regional Park; Claremont Canyon Regional Preserve; Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve; Huckleberry Botanic Regional Preserve; Redwood Regional Park; Leona Canyon Regional Open Space Preserve; Anthony Chabot Regional Park; Lake Chabot Regional Park; and Miller-Knox Regional Shoreline. In addition to the proposed and connected actions, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would achieve substantial reductions in hazardous fire risk by creating a continuous firebreak along the most vulnerable urban-wildland interfaces. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed and connected actions would disturb surface soil resulting in soil erosion, increased sedimentation in nearby water bodies, and increased water turbidity at least for the short term. Sensitive vegetation communities could be impacted by trampling or use of heavy equipment. Common wildlife species could be affected by alteration of habitat and by direct contact with and ingestion of herbicides. In addition, special-status wildlife species, including California red-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake, and other species that have the potential to occur in the project areas, could be impacted. Cutting, skidding, chipping, trimming, and access road construction would cause significant noise impacts in the short term. Aesthetic impacts could occur in communities adjacent to areas where complete removal of eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, and acacia trees is proposed. LEGAL MANDATES: Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-707). JF - EPA number: 130114, Draft EIS--656 pages, Appendices--2,594 pages, May 3, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Erosion KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fire Protection KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Herbicides KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Timber KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16389934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+BAY+HILLS+HAZARDOUS+FIRE+RISK+REDUCTION%2C+ALAMEDA+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+BAY+HILLS+HAZARDOUS+FIRE+RISK+REDUCTION%2C+ALAMEDA+AND+CONTRA+COSTA+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Oakland, California; DHS N1 - Date revised - 2013-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 3, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG THICKET NATIONAL PRESERVE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HARDIN, JASPER, JEFFERSON, LIBERTY, ORANGE, POLK, AND TYLER COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16379817; 15717 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan for the Big Thicket National Preserve in Hardin, Jasper, Jefferson, Liberty, Orange, Polk, and Tyler counties, Texas is proposed. Big Thicket National Preserve is just north of Beaumont and 75 miles northeast of Houston. The preserve consists of nine land units and six water corridors encompassing more than 108,208 acres scattered across a 3,500-square-mile area. The Big Thicket is a transition zone between four distinct vegetation types and provides a variety of wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities. Historically, the area was wilderness until the early 1800s and 1890s when cattle ranching, timber industry, and railroads moved into the region. Today, forest products and petrochemical industries remain major contributors to the regions economy. Some agriculture is increasing and housing developments are pressing on the margins of the thicket and creating openings through its interior. The last comprehensive management plan was completed in 1980 and much has changed since then, including the addition of 22 percent more land. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, would enhance partnerships and collaboration emphasizing a broad ecosystem perspective for protection of the historic Big Thicket. The National Park Service would engage in regional planning and policy efforts for the benefit of resource protection, compatible visitor use, and other issues both within and outside the preserve boundaries. Visitor access and experiences would be expanded to new areas with an emphasis on low impact activities. Houseboats would be subject to existing regulations and policies, and motorized boats would be allowed in the Neches River and Pine Island Bayou from Highway 326 to the confluence with the Neches River including Cooks Lake and Scatterman Lake. Opportunities for horseback riding would be expanded to include a multiuse trail in the Beech Creek unit, the Oxbow area of the Beaumont unit, and the northeast portion of the Lance Rosier unit. Additional hiking trails would be developed and new trailheads with visitor parking would be constructed. Twenty dispersed backcountry sites would be developed along land and water trails. Alternative 3 would emphasize natural resource preservation and research while providing self-reliant recreational opportunities. This alternative would provide the highest emphasis on protection, restoration, and maintenance of native biodiversity in the preserve. Under Alternative 4, people would be encouraged to connect to and support the preserve through exploration of its natural and historical resources and enjoyment of its recreational opportunities. Traditional uses would continue and would be managed to minimize impacts on resources. Alternative 2 would require estimated one-time costs of $7.7 million in 2010 dollars. Alternatives 3 and 4 would require estimated one-time costs of $13.2 million and $30.7 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would confirm the purpose and significance of Big Thicket National Preserve, clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved, and provide a framework for making management decisions over the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, visitor use and some minimal facility development would result in minor to moderate impacts to soils. Water quality, vegetation, and endangered and threatened species and species of concern would experience minor impacts. Impacts to archaeological resources, historic structures, sites, and cultural landscapes would also be minor. Under the action alternatives, annual operating costs would increase by an estimated 14 percent. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130116, 372 pages, May 3, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Lakes KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking 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/16379817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+THICKET+NATIONAL+PRESERVE+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+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 3, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL PARK TRAIL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CUYAHOGA AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, OHIO. AN - 16379095; 15712 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive trail management plan for the Cuyahoga Valley National Park (CVNP), Cuyahoga and Summit counties, Ohio is proposed. CVNP encompasses 33,000 acres between the metropolitan areas of Cleveland and Akron. Visitors have the opportunity to experience the cultural, scenic, natural and recreational resources of the Cuyahoga River Valley and a portion of the Ohio & Erie Canal corridor. CVNP contains 175 miles of trails, of which 97 miles are managed by the National Park Service (NPS). The NPS trail system is comprised of three long distance trails, the Towpath Trail, Buckeye Trail and Valley Bridle Trail, and eleven smaller localized trail systems with separate access points. Cleveland Metroparks and Metro Parks Serving Summit County provide five additional trail systems within their park units. Access to all trails is through 25 trailheads and from four primary visitor contact centers. Eleven percent of the land within CVNP is within the 100-year floodplain of the Cuyahoga River. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. A primary objective, common to all action alternatives, is the restoration of the existing trail network. Restoration may include rehabilitating trails in their present location, relocating or realigning trails, or removal and closure of trails. Mountain biking is the only new use identified that is not currently permitted in the park. Version A alternatives would have no mountain biking, while version B alternatives would include mountain biking. Trails identified as mountain bike would be shared with hikers and in some limited areas, cross-country skiers. Alternatives 2A and 2B would focus on the protection of park resources and improvements to Towpath Trail circulation. Alternatives 3A and 3B would focus on expanding recreational opportunities and significant trail entry points. Alternatives 4A and 4B would focus on providing destination routes to park features and the primitive trail experience. Alternative 5, which is the preferred alternative, combines the ideas from all of the other alternatives. Elements would include: an increase of 37 miles of trails, including a new 10-mile mountain bike trail; incorporation of sustainable trail guidelines; restoration of trails; improvement of 10 existing parking areas and the introduction of four new parking areas; establishment of expanded community partnerships to establish over 30 miles of bike lanes on public roads within CVNP; introduction of three launch sites for water trail access on the Cuyahoga River; and expansion of hike-in and introduction of paddle-in campsites with three introductory sites. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would guide the expansion, restoration, management, operations and use of the trail system and its associated amenities over the next 15 years. Trail facilities and amenities would provide long-term benefits to visitors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Moderate levels of trail development would disturb vegetation and soils, increase habitat fragmentation, and impact sensitive watersheds and buffer areas of wetlands and floodplains. Spread of invasive plants may occur in new trail areas. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130111, 332 pages, May 3, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Watersheds KW - Wetlands KW - Cuyahoga River 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/16379095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-05-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CUYAHOGA+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK+TRAIL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUYAHOGA+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.title=CUYAHOGA+VALLEY+NATIONAL+PARK+TRAIL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CUYAHOGA+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+OHIO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Brecksville, Ohio; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 3, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-08-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HENRYS FORK SALINITY CONTROL PROJECT PLAN, SWEETWATER AND UINTA COUNTIES, WYOMING AND DAGGETT AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16379633; 15708 AB - PURPOSE: A project designed to reduce salt loading contributions of the upper Henrys Fork River to the Colorado River System from irrigated agriculture in Sweetwater and Uinta Counties, Wyoming and Daggett and Summit Counties, Utah is proposed. The Henrys Fork River is tributary to the Green River which is a primary tributary to the Colorado River. The Colorado River provides domestic and industrial water for some 35 million Americans and is used to irrigate four million acres of land in the United States. The river also provides irrigation, domestic, and industrial water to Mexico. Annual damages from dissolved salts in the lower basin of the Colorado River have been quantified as high as $350 million. Through the combined actions of local, state, and federal partners, the salt load of the Colorado River has been reduced by about 1.2 million tons annually. In order to maintain the current water quality, prevent increased damages, and allow for full development of water resources under the Colorado River Compact, an additional 0.5 million to one million tons of salt control are needed by 2030. This final EIS compares a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) with a recommended plan of irrigation system improvements (Alternative B) in the upper Henrys Fork project area. The proposed improvements would provide more efficient use of 70,790 acre feet of water currently used for irrigation. Percolation from 14,096 acres is expected to be treated though on-farm irrigation system improvements and some on-farm water delivery ditches, reducing deep percolation by 40 percent. Existing financial and technical assistance programs would continue to operate, but the recommended plan would increase the available federal funds for assistance. On-farm irrigation application system improvements would expand as producers voluntarily sign-up for assistance provided by the Natural Resources Conservation Service field office. Most of the surface irrigation systems would be converted to side roll, center pivot, and pod sprinkler systems. A limited amount of on-farm delivery ditches that transport irrigation water from the canal to the field would be improved by converting from dirt ditch to buried pipe. The total direct cost of the recommended action is estimated at $24.9 million. The combined public and private benefit-cost ratio for the project is estimated at 1.7:1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An estimated salt load reduction of 6,540 tons/year into the Colorado River System would protect and enhance national economic development, protect and enhance environmental quality, and achieve U.S./Mexico treaty water quality obligations. In addition, grass, hay, and aftermath grazing yields are anticipated to rise 119 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Irrigation-induced wetland acreage is expected to decline by 800 acres and wetland-dependent species are likely to decrease. Riparian habitat value compensation of approximately 129 acres would include removal of invasive species, improved grazing techniques, and wetland enhancements. Consumptive use of water would increase due to changes in the crops produced and net depletions of 1,372 acre-feet of water per year would have small adverse impacts to endangered Colorado River fish. LEGAL MANDATES: Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974. JF - EPA number: 130107, 208 pages, April 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Farm Management KW - Fish KW - Irrigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Soils KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado River KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HENRYS+FORK+SALINITY+CONTROL+PROJECT+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+UINTA+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+AND+DAGGETT+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=HENRYS+FORK+SALINITY+CONTROL+PROJECT+PLAN%2C+SWEETWATER+AND+UINTA+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING+AND+DAGGETT+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lyman, Wyoming; DA N1 - Date revised - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY (LOOP 202), INTERSTATE 10 (PAPAGO FREEWAY) TO INTERSTATE 10 (MARICOPA FREEWAY), MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16376053; 15705 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the South Mountain Freeway, which would generally follow the southern and western edges of the city limits of Phoenix, Arizona for a distance of between 22 and 24 miles, is proposed. The southwestern portion of the Phoenix metropolitan area has experienced some of the fastest population growth in the nation over the past 40 years and projections indicate that Maricopa Countys population will add an average one million people per decade from 2005 to 2035. The proposed facility would constitute a section of State Route 202L (SR 202L) or Loop 202, a part of the Regional Freeway and Highway System. The Red Mountain, Santan, and South Mountain freeway corridors are the component parts of the ultimate SR 202L. The South Mountain freeway would begin at a connection to Interstate 10 (I-10) (Papago Freeway) between 115th Avenue/Avondale Boulevard and 43rd Avenue and end at or near the existing system-to-system freeway interchange connecting SR 202L (Santan Freeway) to I-10 (Maricopa Freeway). The proposed freeway would be constructed in phases ultimately leading to an eight-lane divided, access-controlled facility, with four travel lanes in each direction. Three lanes would be for general purpose use and one lane would be dedicated to high-occupancy vehicle use. The study area has been divided into two sections: the western section where predominantly agricultural uses rapidly transition to urban fringe; and the eastern section where the Ahwatukee Foothills Village community is nearly built-out and Gila River Indian Community (Community) land to the south limits proposed action options. Three western section action alternatives (W59, W71, and W101), one eastern section action alternative (E1), and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. The preferred W59 Alternative would connect to I-10 (Papago Freeway) with a system traffic interchange, which would replace the existing service traffic interchange at 59th Avenue and would convert the existing 59th Avenue to two-lane northbound and southbound frontage roads approximately between Van Buren Street and the Roosevelt Irrigation District canal. From I-10 (Papago Freeway), the W59 Alternative would proceed south along the eastern side of 59th Avenue, crossing Roosevelt and Van Buren streets, then shift to the western side, crossing the UPRR tracks and Buckeye Road before making a slight western shift approximately 0.33 mile north of Lower Buckeye Road. The W59 Alternative would then travel south, crossing Lower Buckeye Road, Broadway Road, the Salt River, and Southern Avenue before making a slight shift to the east. The W59 Alternative would continue south, approximately 0.25 mile west of 59th Avenue, and would cross Baseline and Dobbins roads. It would continue south and then make a curve transition from the southern to the southeastern direction to cross Elliot Road and connect with the E1 Alternative at the point common to all action alternatives on an alignment parallel and adjacent to the Community boundary. The preferred E1 Alternative would travel to the southeast parallel and adjacent to the Community boundary, crossing over Estrella Drive, 51st Avenue, and Ivanhoe Street. In this direction, the action alternative would pass through three ridges of the South Mountains, two of which are in South Mountain Park/Preserve (SMPP), before turning to the east. Traveling to the east, the E1 Alternative would follow and replace the Pecos Road alignment north of and adjacent to the Community boundary, and would cross over 17th Avenue, Desert Foothills Parkway, 24th Street, 32nd Street, and 40th Street. The E1 Alternative would then connect to the existing I-10 (Maricopa Freeway)/SR 202L (Santan Freeway)/Pecos Road system traffic interchange. Total costs of the combined freeway sections would range from $2 billion to $2.6 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the South Mountain Freeway would address existing and projected transportation system capacity deficiencies. As an integral part of the regions adopted multimodal transportation plan, the freeway would help meet regional transportation demand. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Action alternatives in the western section would cross the Salt River channel and the roadway bridge would impact between 17 and 26 acres of jurisdictional waters. The E1 Alternative would permanently impact four acres of ephemeral washes. The preferred W59 Alternative would impact 57 acres of 100-year floodplain, but encroachment would be mitigated through an elevated crossing. Construction would convert cover, nesting areas, and food resources for wildlife habitat; and the E1 Alternative may affect the Sonoran desert tortoise. The W59 Alternative would convert 548 acres of agricultural land to transportation use and displace 53 houses, 680 apartments and 41 businesses. The E1 Alternative would convert 163 acres of agricultural land to transportation use and displace 138 houses. Construction would impact archaeological sites, historical sites and one traditional cultural property. The freeway alignment would pass through the southwestern edges of the SMPP on 31.3 acres (less than 0.2 percent of total SMPP parkland) bordering Community land. Visual and noise intrusions would affect natural and residential areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 130104, Draft EIS--418 pages, Appendices--678 pages, April 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-AZ-EIS-13-01-D KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Parks KW - Preserves KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16376053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+MOUNTAIN+FREEWAY+%28LOOP+202%29%2C+INTERSTATE+10+%28PAPAGO+FREEWAY%29+TO+INTERSTATE+10+%28MARICOPA+FREEWAY%29%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SOUTH+MOUNTAIN+FREEWAY+%28LOOP+202%29%2C+INTERSTATE+10+%28PAPAGO+FREEWAY%29+TO+INTERSTATE+10+%28MARICOPA+FREEWAY%29%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Phoenix, Arizona; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GATEWAY WEST TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, WYOMING AND IDAHO. AN - 16371711; 15703 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of 990 miles of new 230-kilovolt (kV) and 500-kV electric transmission line across southern Wyoming and southern Idaho are proposed. Idaho Power Company and PacifiCorp, Inc. (doing business as Rocky Mountain Power) have applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to cross approximately 500 miles of public lands for portions of the Gateway West Transmission Line Project. The proposed project would include: 10 transmission line segments between Glenrock, Wyoming and the Hemingway substation 30 miles southwest of Boise, Idaho; three new substations; an expansion at one planned substation to be constructed for other purposes; and expansions at eight existing substations. Other associated facilities would include communication systems, optical fiber regeneration stations, and substation distribution supply lines. Granting of the ROW and a special use permit would require amendments of BLM resource management plans (Cassia, Green River, Jarbidge, Kemmerer, and Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area), BLM management framework plans (Twin Falls, Bennett Hills/Timmerman Hills, Bruneau, and Kuna), and Forest Service plans (Caribou and Medicine Bow). Amendments to the Sawtooth Forest Plan, the Pocatello Resource Management Plan and the Bruneau framework plan could also be required. The project would begin in Wyoming at the Windstar Substation in Glenrock and would follow or parallel an existing 230-kV line proposed for reconstruction to the proposed Aeolus Substation near Medicine Bow, Wyoming. It would then proceed as a single-circuit 500-kV line from Aeolus to the Populus Substation near Downey, Idaho. A 345-kV line would connect the Anticline Substation with the Jim Bridger Power Plant. From Populus to the Hemingway Substation southwest of Boise, Idaho, the project would consist of two single-circuit 500-kV roughly parallel paths: segments 5, 6, and 8 would travel on a more northerly route toward the Hemingway Substation through the Borah and Midpoint Substations; and segments 7 and 9 would travel a more southerly route through the proposed Cedar Hill Substation near Murtaugh, Idaho, to the Hemingway Substation. Segment 10 would provide an interconnection between the Cedar Hill and Midpoint Substations and also provide an interconnection between the more northerly and more southerly routes. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed transmission line would relieve operating limitations, increase capacity, and improve reliability in the existing electric transmission grid. Between 1,500 and 3,000 megawatts of additional energy could be delivered to the proponents larger service areas, principally in Utah and Idaho, and to other interconnected systems. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could impact some wetlands and riparian areas and result in the removal of special status plants. Clearing of vegetation may decrease habitat for wildlife species, including Canada lynx, Columbia spotted frog, greater sage-grouse, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, grizzly bear, mountain plover, northern leopard frog, pigmy rabbit, piping plover, least tern, whooping crane, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagle, black-tailed and white-tailed prairie dog, burrowing owl, Prebles meadow jumping mouse, and pocket gopher. Construction could directly impact cultural resources, such as prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, districts, buildings, trails, roads, and landscapes. The proposed route would cross the Oregon, California, Mormon Pioneer, and Pony Express National Historic Trails as well as the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130102, Final EIS--2,045 pages, Appendices--2,143 pages, April 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/012+5101 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - National Parks KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Caribou-Targhee National Forest KW - Idaho KW - Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest KW - Sawtooth National Forest KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING+AND+IDAHO.&rft.title=GATEWAY+WEST+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+WYOMING+AND+IDAHO.&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 - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SLOAN HILLS COMPETITIVE MINERAL MATERIAL SALES, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 16371625; 15702 AB - PURPOSE: The approval of competitive mineral material sales for limestone and dolomite mining on two parcels of federal land in the Sloan Hills area of Clark County, Nevada is proposed. The Sloan Hills site contains geologic formations of calcium and magnesium carbonates (limestone and dolomite, respectively) that have been identified as suitable for the production of construction aggregate. The mining applicants, CEMEX (formerly Rinker Materials West, LLC) and Service Rock Products Corporation (SRP), selected the site because of the large volume of high-quality materials and its proximity to the area where construction materials would be needed most. CEMEX proposes to mine approximately 126 million tons of aggregate from the South site and SRP proposes to mine approximately 74 million tons of aggregate from the North site. Five alternatives are reviewed in this abbreviated final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), the North and South sites would be auctioned as two separate parcels to two different mining companies. Alternative 2 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the North Site only, while Alternative 3 would involve sale of the mineral materials on the South Site only. Alternative 4 would involve the auction of the two parcels to a single bidder. The proposed North Site mine and associated facilities would be located within a 320-acre area in Section 29 of Township 23 South, Range 61 East. Once completed, the open pit mine would be approximately 143 acres in size. A crushing and screening plant would be constructed on 46 acres in the northwest portion of the site, access roads and utility corridors would occupy seven acres, and an unusable rock stockpile area would be located on 17 acres in the northeast portion of the site. The proposed South Site mine would be located on a 320-acre parcel adjacent to the North Site mine and one mile southeast of the Sloan Road exit on Interstate 15. Facilities and operations would be similar to those proposed for the North Site. The Record of Decision documents the selection of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 5). Decision factors include the impacts an open pit mine would have on air quality and property values, as well as the strong opposition to the proposed sale voiced by local elected officials and local residents. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the sales would allow the applicant to mine high-quality limestone and dolomite to supply construction aggregate to the southern Las Vegas Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Alternatives 1 through 4 would not comply with the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. Implementation of Alternative 1 would remove or destroy 6,100 cacti and yucca plants and result in impacts on special status plant species. Wildlife habitat would be permanently removed impacting special status species, including desert tortoise. Recreational resources would be affected by the loss of 640 acres that were previously available for dispersed recreation. An estimated 1,766 to 2,283 acre-feet of water would be needed over the life of the mine for each of the two sites. Deterioration of the surrounding roadway network due to project-related truck traffic would be significant and increased noise levels and changes to the visual character of the area could impact the experience of users of the Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area and the North McCullough Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Surface Resources Act of 1955 (30 U.S.C 611 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130101, Final EIS and Record of Decision--232 pages, April 26, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Drilling KW - Limestone KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mining KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Surface Resources Act of 1955, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SLOAN+HILLS+COMPETITIVE+MINERAL+MATERIAL+SALES%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 26, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NIOBRARA CONFLUENCE AND PONCA BLUFFS CONSERVATION AREAS LAND PROTECTION PLAN, NEBRASKA AND SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 16391925; 15692 AB - PURPOSE: A land protection plan (LPP) that would increase conservation efforts along the Missouri River in northeast Nebraska and southeast South Dakota is proposed. The LPP would provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) with the authority to develop conservation easements with or buy land in fee title from willing landowners for two proposed areas: the Niobrara Confluence Conservation Area (NCCA); and the Ponca Bluffs Conservation Area (PBCA). The Missouri River has experienced significant alterations and modifications over the past 100 years. Mainstem dams and other river management practices have regulated flows, decreasing the severity of flood events; but they have also had both beneficial and adverse effects on native fish and wildlife species, recreational opportunities, historical resources, and overall river functionality. The NCCA encompasses 790,873 acres between Fort Randall Dam and Lewis and Clark Lake and includes reaches of the Missouri and Niobrara Rivers. This area contains one of the last segments of the middle Missouri River that remains unchannelized, undeveloped, and relatively free-flowing. The surrounding old, wide river valley contains important habitat for at least 60 native and 26 sport fishes. In addition, the areas riparian woodlands and island complexes are important for approximately 25 resident bird species and 115 migratory bird species including piping plovers, least terns, and bald eagles. The 623,921-acre PBCA lies between Gavins Point Dam and Sioux City. This area is a diverse, relatively unaltered, riverine-floodplain ecosystem characterized by a main channel, braided channels, wooded riparian corridor, pools, chutes, sloughs, islands, sandbars, backwater areas, wetlands, natural floodplain and upland forest communities, pastureland, and croplands. The area also supports a wide variety of wildlife and fisheries resources. Four alternatives are evaluated in this draft EIS. The alternatives were developed using a prioritization matrix that included: important habitats for federal trust species (bald eagles, least terns, piping plovers, and pallid sturgeon); areas that are important for overall river health and functionality (confluences, historical floodplain, and large islands); areas in which to improve or maintain recreational access sites to the Missouri River; historically significant sites; and areas with high-quality scenic attributes. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the proposed conservation areas would not be established and FWS and NPS would continue to manage the Missouri River and portions of the Niobrara River and Verdigre Creek as the Missouri National Recreational River. FWS would continue to work with private landowners on restoration efforts with no option for conservation easements or fee-title acquisition. Alternatives B through D evaluate a range of conservation goals that include a mix of 80 percent conservation easements and 20 percent fee-title acquisition. The proposed action (Alternative C) for the NCCA sets forth a conservation goal of 80,000 acres, with 64,000 acres of that goal being acquired through easements. For the PBCA, the proposed action sets forth a goal of 60,000 acres, with 48,000 acres being conserved through conservation easements. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed conservation areas would build on existing conservation efforts along the Missouri River in northeast Nebraska and southeast South Dakota. The LPP would help conserve important wildlife habitats, increase quality recreational opportunities, preserve sensitive cultural sites, and maintain sustainable farming and ranching operations in the region. Areas vulnerable to risk of flooding would be decreased by 40 to 60 percent. Conservation easements would keep land in private ownership and on local tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of is expected to have negligible to minor effects on land features, soils, vegetation, and geology. Management of lands for healthy rivers, grasslands and forests would benefit ranching operations, but may reduce the potential production of agricultural crops in the area. In addition, the acquisition of land in fee-title would cause a direct decline in taxes paid to counties. LEGAL MANDATES: National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (P.L. 94-233) and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). JF - EPA number: 130091, 217 pages, April 19, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Scenic Areas KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Missouri National Recreational River KW - Missouri River KW - Nebraska KW - Niobrara River KW - South Dakota KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NIOBRARA+CONFLUENCE+AND+PONCA+BLUFFS+CONSERVATION+AREAS+LAND+PROTECTION+PLAN%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=NIOBRARA+CONFLUENCE+AND+PONCA+BLUFFS+CONSERVATION+AREAS+LAND+PROTECTION+PLAN%2C+NEBRASKA+AND+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPACEX TEXAS LAUNCH SITE, CAMERON COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 16391292; 15699 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 draft 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Commercial Space Launch Act of 2011 (51 U.S.C. 50901 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130098, Draft EIS--350 pages, Appendices--548 pages, April 19, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Air Transportation 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 - Wetlands 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/16391292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-19&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 - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF ELEMENTAL MERCURY (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2011). AN - 16389811; 15695 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-414), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), and Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. JF - EPA number: 130094, 424 pages, April 19, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Wastes 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 - Colorado KW - Idaho KW - Missouri KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - South Carolina KW - Texas KW - Washington KW - Mercury Export Ban Act 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/16389811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LONG-TERM+MANAGEMENT+AND+STORAGE+OF+ELEMENTAL+MERCURY+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2011%29.&rft.title=LONG-TERM+MANAGEMENT+AND+STORAGE+OF+ELEMENTAL+MERCURY+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+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 - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION FINAL EIS OF APRIL 2012). AN - 16379780; 15698 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile-long portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is approved. The federal Surface Transportation Board is adopting the final EIS released in April 2012 by the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the Federal Railroad Administration. The plan for the overall HST system is to provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. The final EIS evaluates three HST north-south alignment alternatives and a No Project Alternative. The HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035, for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The action alternatives are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. Under the Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the alignment would generally follow the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Alternative alignment would follow the BNSF rail corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veer back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative would follow the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. All three alternatives include design options to avoid or minimize impacts and alternative wye (branch) connections to three east-west alignment options (along Avenue 24, Avenue 21, and SR 152) that would connect this section with the San Jose to Merced Section. The Merced to Fresno Section may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. Five alternative sites are considered for the facility which would encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. The Hybrid Alternative was selected in the Record of Decision issued in September 2012. The selected alternative includes stations in downtown Merced between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street and in downtown Fresno at Mariposa Street. Due to influencing factors from adjacent sections, the identification of the preferred wye option and the HMF are being postponed until after the Fresno to Bakersfield Section and the San Jose to Merced Section environmental evaluation processes are completed. Project costs for the Hybrid Alternative are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $4.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The HST system would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminants. Depending on the wye connection, the Hybrid Alternative would displace 1,273 to 1,426 acres of farmland and require 1,100 to 1,139 property acquisitions, including 186 to 213 residential displacements and 212 to 226 business displacements. The project would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. Implementation of the Hybrid Alternative would result in up to 36 permanent road closures, potential impacts to historic properties, displacement impacts to community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 130097, Volume I--1,645 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--860 pages, Volume III--Alignment Plans, Volume IV--Comments and Responses, April 19, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379780?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28ADOPTION+OF+THE+FEDERAL+RAILROAD+ADMINISTRATION+FINAL+EIS+OF+APRIL+2012%29.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28ADOPTION+OF+THE+FEDERAL+RAILROAD+ADMINISTRATION+FINAL+EIS+OF+APRIL+2012%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 - 2013-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 19, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-07-25 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Friant water allocation decreased again AN - 1328405502 AB - Currently, precipitation in the Upper San Joaquin River watershed at Huntington Lake is about 19.7 inches, which is about 53 percent of average for this time of year. JF - Western Farm Press AU - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AD - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Y1 - 2013/04/18/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Apr 18 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1328405502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Friant+water+allocation+decreased+again&rft.au=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aulast=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Apr 18, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2013 - 2014; WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 233 AND CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 231, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 16391795; 15689 AB - PURPOSE: Two oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Western Planning Area (WPA) Lease Sale 233 and Central Planning Area (CPA) Lease Sale 231 were scheduled as part of the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 which was analyzed in the final WPA/CPA Multisale EIS of July 2012. The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses about 28.58 million acres. As of March 2013, approximately 20.7 million acres of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of WPA Lease Sale 233 is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet of gas. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this final supplemental EIS. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations except for whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The proposed CPA lease sale area encompasses about 63 million acres of the CPAs 66.45 million acres. As of March 2013, approximately 43 million acres of the proposed CPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of CPA Lease Sale 231 is 0.460-0.894 billion barrels of oil and 1.939-3.903 trillion cubic feet of gas. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale area, with the following exceptions: whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006; and blocks that are beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also provided for an exclusion of 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. An international agreement to govern the development of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Mexico was signed on February 20, 2012, but it has not yet been enacted. Upon its enactment, the blocks and acreage in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available and will no longer need to be excluded. 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Coastal environmental degradation caused by navigation canal maintenance, new infrastructure, and inshore spills could impact fish resources and essential fish habitat. The incremental contribution of the WPA or CPA proposed actions to the cumulative impacts to coastal barriers and their associated dunes is expected to be small and localized. 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 soft-bottom benthic habitats would occur. Adverse impacts to 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 recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130088, 526 pages, April 12, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2013-118 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/16391795?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2013+-+2014%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+233+AND+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+231%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA+%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+2013+-+2014%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+233+AND+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+231%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA+%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, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 12, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TRICOUNTY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, SIERRA, OTERO, AND DONA ANA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 16375176; 15688 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Las Cruces District Office, in Sierra, Otero, and Dona Ana counties, New Mexico are proposed. The planning area covered by the TriCounty Resource Management Plan (RMP) consists of about 9.3 million acres which includes all federal, state trust, private and tribal lands in the three counties. The decision area includes 2.8 million surface acres and 3.9 million acres of federal mineral estate. The Las Cruces District Office manages a number of special resource protection areas including: 13 areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) totaling 89,723 acres; two research natural areas; 10 wilderness study areas (WSAs) totaling 261,793 acres; the Kilbourne Hole National Natural Landmark; the Lake Valley Backcountry Byway; the Camino Real de Tierra Adentro National Historic Trail; and the Prehistoric Trackways National Monument. The monument will have a separate stand-alone RMP. The three-county area varies greatly in resource diversity, production, and potential due to differences in elevation, climate, soils, and a topography that exhibits influences from the Chihuahuan desert, Mexican Highlands, southern Rocky Mountains, and Mogollon Plateau Physiographic Regions. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative B would emphasize conservation and preservation of resources and would place the most restrictions on resource use. Alternative C is the preferred alternative and would balance long-term conservation with the mandate to provide for multiple-use. Alternative D would emphasize resource use, access, and production; and resource protection would only be that which is necessary to meet regulatory or legislative requirements. Significant proposals under Alternative C include: the designation of 11 new ACECs (216,311 acres); the deferral of 3.5 million acres from new oil and gas leasing; a recommendation that 337,807 acres be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry; and closure of 17,602 acres of allotments that have no grazing authorization or have conflicts. An additional 803 acres would be managed for wilderness values outside of the existing designated areas. Vehicle use on 99 percent of the decision area would be limited to existing or designated routes. Approximately 42,000 acres would be managed as open to off-highway vehicle use and 20,000 acres would be closed. Motor vehicle use would be allowed within WSAs provided the route existed at the time the area was designated a WSA. Eligible river segments would not be considered suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, but would receive protection through ACECs and critical habitat. The acres allocated and managed as SRMAs and ERMAs would be approximately 151,000 acres. Under alternatives B and C, Alamo Mountain , Cornudas Mountain, Wind Mountain and the proposed VanWinkle Lake ACECs would be incorporated into the Otero Mesa Grasslands ACEC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed TriCounty RMP would replace the White Sands RMP and supersede the Mimbres RMP for Dona Ana County. Revising the existing RMPs would consolidate, update, and establish appropriate goals, objectives, land use allocations, management actions, priorities, and procedures, within a multiple-use management context. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in soil erosion and potential damage to vegetation, cultural resources, and wildlife habitat. Disposal of up to five percent of the public land may lead to wildlife habitat degradation. Sand prickly pear could potentially be extirpated from public land identified for disposal as this land comprises the majority of this species habitat. Retention of sand prickly pear habitat near Anthony is expected to preclude the necessity of listing the species as threatened or endangered. Motor vehicle use within WSAs would impact wilderness values. Solar and wind development and other projects, such as range improvements, could have a detrimental effect on wilderness characteristics of the Nutt Grasslands, and these characteristics would not likely be maintained over time. Prohibitions restricting grazing and mining would impact businesses and industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130087, Draft EIS--464 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, April 12, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-13-03-1610 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Property Disposition 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 - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375176?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TRICOUNTY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SIERRA%2C+OTERO%2C+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TRICOUNTY+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SIERRA%2C+OTERO%2C+AND+DONA+ANA+COUNTIES%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 12, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLEAR CREEK MANAGEMENT AREA RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, FRESNO AND SAN BENITO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16371585; 15682 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a new resource management plan for 63,000 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Clear Creek Management Area (CCMA) of central California, is proposed. The planning area includes a portion of southern San Benito County and a portion of western Fresno County as well as three major watersheds. The majority of the area is dominated by the serpentine soil formation known as the New Idria formation, which is characterized by sparse vegetation, large barren complexes, and a unique forest of foothill, Jeffrey, and Coulter pine. Since 1984, approximately 30,000 acres of serpentine soils high in asbestos fibers within the CCMA have been designated as an area of critical environmental concern (ACEC) to protect public health and safety. Key planning issues include those related to: chrysotile asbestos and risks to human health from exposure; motorized and non-motorized recreation access; special status species; potential land acquisition and disposal; wildfire management; mineral development; and impacts on watersheds, water quality, and air quality. Seven land use management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this final EIS. Five of the alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E) would entail motorized public access in the ACEC. Alternative F would restrict public access in the ACEC to non-motorized travel only, and Alternative G would minimize public health risk by prohibiting all public access and entry. Route miles closed in the ACEC would vary by alternative from zero to 227 miles. The preferred alternative primarily reflects the management approach of Alternative E and would allow for limited vehicle touring through the Serpentine ACEC while emphasizing pedestrian use in the ACEC and non-motorized recreation opportunities outside the ACEC. Access into the Serpentine ACEC would be authorized by permit only. Vehicle touring would be limited to a scenic route (Spanish Lake Road) from Idria to Wright Mountain and no off-highway vehicle (OHV) use would be allowed in the ACEC. Pedestrian trail day use opportunities would be available at destinations with unique scenic, natural or geologic features in the ACEC. Vehicle touring would be limited to less than five days per year and pedestrian activity limited to less than 12 days per year. Public health and safety risks would be mitigated by restricting access and use during extreme weather conditions. Adaptive management would consider new information on asbestos exposure, and adjust use limitations accordingly. The entire 30,000-acre ACEC would be recommended for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would limit land use that: 1) creates high levels of asbestos emissions; 2) creates increased opportunity for human exposure to asbestos; and 3) creates a need to conduct intensive management in areas with high concentrations of asbestos. Limits on annual visitor use days would allow the public to experience the scenic, biological, cultural and geologic features of the Serpentine ACEC within the acceptable risk range for exposure to asbestos, and with less BLM infrastructure and support needs. Prescribed fires would increase nutrients in soils, improve habitat for desired vegetation species, and increase habitat available for forage and browsing. Public hazards related to abandoned mines would be eliminated or mitigated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased motorized recreation outside of the ACEC would impact riparian and upland plant communities. Continued livestock grazing both within and outside of the ACEC would result in minor adverse impacts to vegetation and special status animal species habitat. Unauthorized off-road vehicle operation and accompanying negative impacts in other areas, such as the Tumey and Panoche Hills, could impact habitat for special status species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, giant kangaroo rat, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Travel restrictions would have an impact on recreation including OHV and other motor vehicle users. 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 09-0395D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 130080, Final EIS--734--pages and maps, Appendices--812 pages, April 5, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2012-013+1793 KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Health Hazards KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Watersheds KW - Wilderness Management KW - California KW - Clear Creek Management Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16371585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-04-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CLEAR+CREEK+MANAGEMENT+AREA+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+FRESNO+AND+SAN+BENITO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hollister, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 5, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2011). AN - 16392233; 15677 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the authorization of oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas are proposed. The project area covers 200,331 square miles within the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and includes State of Alaska and outer continental shelf waters adjacent to the North Slope of Alaska, and transit areas of the Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Straits. Key issues include: impacts to marine mammals and habitats; risks of oil spills; climate change; protection of subsistence resources and the Inupiat culture; availability of research and monitoring data for decision-making; monitoring requirements; and mitigation measures. After releasing the draft EIS in December 2011, the scope of analysis was broadened in light of comments from stakeholders. The initial EIS analyzed the effects of up to two exploratory drilling programs per year in both the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the effects of up to four drilling programs per year in each area. The revised draft also expands discussion of mitigation measures designed to reduce the effects of offshore oil and gas activities on marine mammals and marine mammal subsistence users. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered. Three categories of activities are evaluated: deep penetration geophysical surveys including seismic surveys, gravity and gradiometry surveys, and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveys; shallow hazards surveys using acoustic imagery of the sub-seafloor or using sediment sampling devices; and exploratory drilling. Alternative 2 would authorize Level 1 activity to include: up to four seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to three seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number of surveys in each sea including ice breaking if necessary; up to three site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and one exploratory drilling program in each sea per year. Alternative 3 would authorize Level 2 exploration activity to include: up to six seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to five seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number in each sea including ice breaking; up to five site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and up to two exploratory drilling programs in in each sea per year. Alternative 4 would authorize the same Level 2 exploration activity, but would include up to four exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year. Alternative 5 would authorize the same Level 2 exploration activity as well as the four exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year, but with additional required time/area closures. Alternative 6 would include the same Level 2 exploration activity and the four exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year, but with specific additional measures that focus on the use of alternative technologies that have the potential to augment or replace traditional airgun-based seismic exploration activities. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would facilitate National Marine Fisheries Service decision-making through proactive analysis of the effects of multiple exploration activities and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The collection of high-resolution shallow hazards data would help the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management ensure safe operations, support environmental impact analyses, protect resources through avoidance measures, and perform other statutory responsibilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic and exploratory drilling activities may result in the disturbance of marine mammals through sound, discharge of pollutants, and the physical presence of vessels. Drill sites would impact visual resources. A very large oil spill scenario would cause: sustained degradation of water quality and ecosystems; contamination of essential fish habitat; toxic exposure of marine and terrestrial species; contamination of the shoreline with major disruption of subsistence practices; displacement of recreationists and reduction in tourism; acute disturbance of visual resources; and impacts to public health. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130075, Volume I--445 pages, Volume II--731 pages, Volume III--316 pages, March 29, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Energy Sources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Ice Environments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea 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/16392233?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2011%29.&rft.title=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2011%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland; DC N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS IN-SITU LEACH RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CROOK COUNTY, WYOMING (FIFTH DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 16391999; 15675 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 draft 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final generic EIS on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 130073, 481 pages, March 29, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 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/16391999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+IN-SITU+LEACH+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CROOK+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FIFTH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ROSS+IN-SITU+LEACH+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CROOK+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING+%28FIFTH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&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 - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BILLINGS AND POMPEYS PILLAR NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BIG HORN, CARBON, GOLDEN VALLEY, MUSSELSHELL, STILLWATER, SWEET GRASS, WHEATLAND, AND YELLOWSTONE COUNTIES, MONTANA AND BIG HORN COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 16386439; 15681 AB - PURPOSE: A consolidated resource management plan (RMP) for public lands in south central Montana and in northern Wyoming, as well as for the Pompeys Pillar National Monument is proposed. The planning area encompasses 10.8 million acres of land in Big Horn, Carbon, Golden Valley, Musselshell, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, and Yellowstone counties in Montana and portions of Big Horn County, Wyoming consisting of 4,298 acres of the Pryor Mountain Wild Horse Range (PMWHR). Included within the planning area is Pompeys Pillar National Monument (51 acres) which was established in 2001 by executive proclamation. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Billings Field Office administers 434,154 acres of surface lands and 1.8 million acres of federal mineral estate under the 1984 Billings RMP. Four alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue current management including nine areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), two National Historic Trails (NHTs), and one horse range (PMWHR). This alternative also includes seven wild and scenic river (WSR) eligible waterways, and four wilderness study areas (WSAs). The BLM maintains two special recreation management areas (SRMAs) and seven extensive recreation management areas (ERMAs); and livestock grazing is allowed on all but 37,408 acres of the decision area. Fluid minerals are available for leasing on 264,534 acres with standard lease terms and on 369,048 acres with major and moderate constraints. Alternative B emphasizes the conservation of physical, biological, or cultural resources over commodity production, mineral extraction, and motorized recreation. Constraints or limitations to commercial uses/resources would be greater than in other alternatives, and in some areas, uses would be excluded to protect sensitive or fragile resources. Nine ACECs would be retained and three additional ACECs proposed under this alternative. Alternative B also includes proposing the greater sage-grouse habitat ACEC. Alternative C would emphasize commodity production, motorized recreational access, and services. Under this alternative, constraints on commodity production for the protection of sensitive resources would be the least restrictive possible within the limits defined by law, regulation and BLM policy. Alternative D is the preferred management approach. Nine ACECs would be retained and two additional ACECs would be proposed. Other special designations would include: two NHTs, one horse range (PMWHR), two wild and scenic river eligible and recommended suitable waterways, and four WSAs. The BLM would maintain the two existing SRMAs and manage seven additional areas as SRMAs, and two areas would be managed as ERMAs. Livestock grazing would be allowed on all but 28,387 acres of the planning area. Off-highway vehicle use would be limited to existing roads and trails except in the 11 travel management areas where use is limited to designated routes. Fluid minerals would be available for leasing on 6,158 acres with standard lease terms and on 599,938 acres with major and moderate constraints. A 20,937-acre area would be open to renewable wind energy development. Acreages and locations for sage-grouse protection priority areas, restoration areas, and general habitat areas are the same for all action alternatives. All alternatives would utilize wildfire management to restore fire-adapted ecosystems and reduce hazardous fuels. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new RMP would provide comprehensive management direction by making land use decisions for all appropriate resources and resource uses the BLM administers in the planning area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minerals development, motorized vehicle use, road construction, and recreation activity would impact soils, forests and woodlands, range and shrubland, and riparian/wetland areas. However, only limited development for locatable minerals, fluid minerals, coal, and mineral materials is expected during the life of the plan. Offsite erosion and sediment delivery could impact water resources. Habitat loss and fragmentation would affect wildlife, but all the alternatives include additional protective management for special status species. Surface-disturbing activities could physically alter, damage, or destroy fossils or their context and result in adverse impacts to important paleontological resources. The cumulative impact on visual resources from mineral resource development, transportation, wildfire, and vegetation treatments is expected to be minor. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-11). JF - EPA number: 130079, Draft EIS--1,273 pages, Appendices--1,068 pages, March 29, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-13/008+1610 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 - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife 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/16386439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BILLINGS+AND+POMPEYS+PILLAR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+CARBON%2C+GOLDEN+VALLEY%2C+MUSSELSHELL%2C+STILLWATER%2C+SWEET+GRASS%2C+WHEATLAND%2C+AND+YELLOWSTONE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+AND+BIG+HORN+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=BILLINGS+AND+POMPEYS+PILLAR+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BIG+HORN%2C+CARBON%2C+GOLDEN+VALLEY%2C+MUSSELSHELL%2C+STILLWATER%2C+SWEET+GRASS%2C+WHEATLAND%2C+AND+YELLOWSTONE+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA+AND+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE MEREDITH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA AND ALIBATES FLINT QUARRIES NATIONAL MONUMENT DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUTCHINSON, MOORE, AND POTTER COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16386391; 15679 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan (GMP) to provide direction over the next 15 to 20 years for Lake Meredith National Recreation Area (NRA) and Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument in Hutchinson, Moore, and Potter Counties, Texas is proposed. Lake Meredith was created in 1964 when the Canadian River was impounded by the construction of Sanford Dam. Lake Meredith NRA consists of the lake and surrounding lands, totaling almost 45,000 acres. Its primary purpose is to provide public access in the Texas panhandle to diverse land- and water-based recreational opportunities. Congress transferred management of the NRA to the National Park Service (NPS) in 1990. Although its management has been guided by a master plan, a GMP has not previously been 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 NRA and the two national park system units are managed jointly. A management plan for the national monument was prepared in 1976 and amended in 1985, but it does not meet the requirements of a GMP and is out of date. Three alternatives for managing each NPS unit are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) represents current management for Lake Meredith NRA. 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 expanded opportunities in more natural rural and semi-primitive zones. Alternative 3 is the preferred alternative and would promote both traditional and nontraditional uses, developing facilities and opportunities to address changing lake conditions and visitor uses. The NRA would become a destination for semi-primitive outdoor recreation opportunities and partnerships would be strengthened to improve visitor experience. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) represents current management for Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument. Alternative B is the preferred alternative and would expand interpretation and education to provide a better understanding and appreciation of the flint and the people who quarried and used it while maintaining access restrictions that protect the archeological resources. Alternative C would provide a greater understanding and appreciation for archeological protection through enhanced educational opportunities and research. It also would accommodate a wider range of visitor uses and experiences by zoning part of the national monument for unrestricted visitor access by foot. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new GMP would meet the need to achieve more broad-based recreation opportunities at Lake Meredith NRA, with the flexibility to accommodate varying lake levels and an approach that takes better advantage of the 80 percent of the NRA that is outside the normal lake footprint. The plan also would address increased visitation at Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument and the need for increased opportunities for interpretation and education. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred management alternatives would have no significant adverse impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130077, 342 pages, March 29, 2013 PY - 2013 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/16386391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+MEREDITH+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+ALIBATES+FLINT+QUARRIES+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+DRAFT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HUTCHINSON%2C+MOORE%2C+AND+POTTER+COUNTIES%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=LAKE+MEREDITH+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+AND+ALIBATES+FLINT+QUARRIES+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+DRAFT+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 29, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HILINE DISTRICT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GLACIER, TOOLE, LIBERTY, CHOUTEAU, HILL, BLAINE, PHILLIPS, AND VALLEY COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 16395847; 15667 AB - PURPOSE: An updated Resource Management Plan (RMP) which would provide direction for managing 2.4 million acres of public land and 4.2 million acres of federal minerals within the HiLine District in Glacier, Toole, Liberty, Chouteau, Hill, Blaine, Phillips, and Valley counties, Montana is proposed. These lands and minerals are managed by three Bureau of Land Management (BLM) field offices in Havre, Malta, and Glasgow along with the Great Falls Oil and Gas Field Office, which provides oil and gas program support in western, central, and northcentral Montana. The proposed HiLine RMP would address considerable changes within the planning area since completion of the Judith-Valley-Phillips RMP in 1994 and the West HiLine RMP in 1988. These changes include increased interest in energy development, increased demand for recreational use of public lands, and increased concern for preserving air quality and the natural environment. Key issues addressed include management of recreation, travel management, energy and mineral resources, wilderness characteristics, biological and ecological resources, cultural and heritage resources, scenic quality and visual resources, air quality, vegetation and grazing, and designation and management of special areas. This RMP revision also incorporates specific management actions and conservation measures to conserve greater sage-grouse and its habitats on BLM land. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) which would continue current management, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative E is the BLMs preferred alternative and aims to find middle ground for the variety of activities that can occur on the HiLine landscape. For fluid minerals, approximately 1.7 million acres (49 percent) of federal minerals would be open to leasing subject to major constraints; 1.5 million acres (42 percent) would be open to leasing subject to minor constraints; and 167,273 acres (five percent) would be open to leasing subject to standard lease terms only. Approximately 152,702 acres (four percent) of federal minerals would be closed to leasing. About one percent of the planning area (33,943 acres) would be open to wind energy rights-of-way (ROWs) with minor constraints and 35 percent of the planning area (863,822 acres) would be avoidance areas. About 63 percent of the planning area would be exclusion areas for wind energy ROWs (1.5 million acres). For solid minerals, a total of 1.6 million acres would be closed to solid mineral leasing. Four existing mineral withdrawals would be continued (20,058 acres). The BLM would recommend a 20-year extension for the Sweet Grass Hills traditional cultural property (TCP) withdrawal, and modifications to the Camp Creek and Montana Gulch campgrounds withdrawals. Three withdrawals would be recommended for revocation. The BLM would consider the need for a new withdrawal or ROW for the Zortman/Landusky mine reclamation area. Two new withdrawals would be recommended (24,692 acres). Areas closed to salable minerals would total 171,403 acres. Six existing areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be continued and four potential ACECs would be designated. No back country byways would be designated. The 0.5-mile segment of the Marias River at the confluence of the Missouri River would be recommended as nonsuitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The BLM would manage two areas (10,714 acres) to protect wilderness characteristics as a priority over other multiple uses and would apply management restrictions to reduce impacts to wilderness characteristics on 290,865 acres. Two areas with BLM surface ownership (298,772 acres) would be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation and a 930,265-acre area with BLM surface ownership greater than 50 percent would be managed to retain intact blocks of native vegetation where contiguous acreage of greater than 10,000 acres is present. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A single, comprehensive plan to guide management of public lands and minerals administered by the HiLine District would provide goals, objectives, land use allocations, and management direction to maintain, improve, or enhance resource conditions and to provide for long-term benefits to the public. The incorporation of objectives and adequate measures to conserve, enhance, and/or restore greater sage-grouse habitat could reduce the need to list the species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would continue to impact vegetation and soils. Approximately 245,872 acres of new surface disturbances are anticipated on all land ownerships over the next 20 years. Off-highway vehicle use may impact paleontological resources. Cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. A portion of the Little Rocky Mountains TCP would be adversely affected by potential mineral exploration. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130065, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--480 pages, March 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/MT/PL-13/004+1610 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Employment KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management 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/16395847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-22&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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BELL ISLAND GEOTHERMAL LEASES, KETCHIKAN-MISTY FIORDS RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2008). AN - 16395813; 15666 AB - PURPOSE: A consent determination for the issuance of three pending geothermal leases on Bell Island and the adjacent mainland within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The 2008 programmatic EIS (PEIS) for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States provides a framework to facilitate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service efforts to analyze and expedite the leasing of BLM and National Forest System (NFS) lands with high potential for renewable geothermal resources in eleven western states and Alaska. Three of the backlogged lease areas analyzed in the PEIS encompass much of Bell Island and a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula, and together total 7,680 acres. With the exception of a private inholding within one of the lease areas (13.9 acres owned by the lease applicant), the lease areas are all on NFS lands and are located within the boundaries of the North Cleveland inventoried roadless area (IRA). As the 2008 PEIS did not recognize the Bell Island leases as being within a roadless area, this final supplemental EIS addresses the potential effects of any consent determination on the roadless area characteristics and values of the North Cleveland IRA. It also addresses the potential effects on subsistence and the social and economic conditions in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), the Forest Service would consent to the three pending geothermal leases, with appropriate stipulations. The reasonably foreseeable development scenario describes the likely development of one 20 megawatt binary power plant, which is expected to result in approximately 10 acres of disturbance. Any disturbance resulting from power line construction if a geothermal power plant were sited would be in addition to the area estimated in the PEIS, and the effects of this disturbance would be considered and disclosed in subsequent project specific analyses. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative B, in which the Forest Service will provide a consent determination to the BLM for the issuance of pending lease applications AK084543, AK084544 and AK084545 on Bell Island and the adjacent mainland. The consent determination will incorporate pertinent stipulations from the PEIS, including the Roadless Area Stipulation. Based on that stipulation and the fact that the Bell Island leases do not have existing roads, full-scale development would most likely occur on the private lands within Lease Area AK084543. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Anticipated future actions associated with development of geothermal resources could contribute to increased employment opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploration and utilization of geothermal resources would impact the natural features within the project area. Any change from undeveloped to developed land uses and increased human activity could affect the roadless characteristics of the area and subsistence uses. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final PEIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, see 10-0248F, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 130064, Final Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision--76 pages, March 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16395813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BELL+ISLAND+GEOTHERMAL+LEASES%2C+KETCHIKAN-MISTY+FIORDS+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2008%29.&rft.title=BELL+ISLAND+GEOTHERMAL+LEASES%2C+KETCHIKAN-MISTY+FIORDS+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ketchikan, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PAN MINE PROJECT, EUREKA AND WHITE PINE, NEVADA. AN - 16381826; 15673 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. LEGAL MANDATES: General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130071, 796 pages, March 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/EL/ES/13-64-6+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/16381826?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PAN+MINE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+AND+WHITE+PINE%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PAN+MINE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+AND+WHITE+PINE%2C+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER GREAT PLAINS WIND ENERGY, IOWA, MINNESOTA, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, AND SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 16381772; 15672 AB - PURPOSE: Environmental evaluation procedures and mitigation strategies for wind energy development projects in the Western Area Power Administration's Upper Great Plains Customer Service Region (UGP Region), which encompasses all or parts of Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota are proposed. The procedures and strategies would be applied to interconnection requests made to Western by project developers and to requests for consideration of easement exchanges to accommodate wind energy project development on grassland and wetland easements managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) within the UGP Region. The Upper Great Plains area has been identified as having a high potential for wind energy development because of the availability of an excellent wind resource regime. In the six-State region being considered in this programmatic draft EIS, installed commercial wind energy generation capacity has grown from approximately 0.5 gigawatts (GW) to more than 8 GW in the past 10 years. Much of this growth has occurred in the past five years, and it is anticipated that the industrys installed generating capacity within the UGP Region will continue to increase at a rapid pace. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered. Under Alternative 1, Western would adopt a standardized, structured process for collecting information and evaluating and reviewing the environmental impacts, and would establish programmatic best management practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures to minimize the environmental impacts from projects requesting interconnection with Westerns transmission facilities in the UGP Region. Under this alternative, the FWS would adopt a similar process for evaluating and addressing the impacts associated with projects requesting easement exchanges in order to accommodate placement of wind energy facilities on FWS easements. The proposed BMPs and mitigation measures would address issues associated with land use, project location, sensitive or critical habitats, habitat fragmentation, threatened and endangered and other protected species, avian and bat impacts, habitat restoration, visual resources, road construction and maintenance, transportation planning and traffic management, air emissions, noise, noxious weeds, pesticide use, cultural and paleontological resources, hazardous materials and waste management, erosion control, and human health and safety. Under Alternative 2, Western would analyze typical impacts of wind energy development and would develop and identify standardized BMPs, mitigation measures, and monitoring needs for interconnection requests as identified for Alternative 1; but the FWS would not allow easement exchanges for wind energy development. Under Alternative 3, as with the other alternatives, wind energy projects would be required to meet established federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. However, no additional BMPs, mitigation measures, or monitoring would be requested of project developers by Western or the FWS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed wind energy development process, including the establishment of programmatic procedures, BMPs, and mitigation measures, would be expected to reduce delays and costs for wind energy projects. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 83 acres would be directly impacted by placement of facilities for an estimated eight wind energy projects between 2012 and 2030. Adverse impacts to wildlife could occur at some of the future wind energy development sites. Visual resources are likely to be impacted. Under Alternative 3, the FWS's ability to protect conservation values on easements could be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 13212. JF - EPA number: 130070, 938 pages, March 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0408 KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Conservation KW - Easements KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Iowa KW - Minnesota KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+GREAT+PLAINS+WIND+ENERGY%2C+IOWA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=UPPER+GREAT+PLAINS+WIND+ENERGY%2C+IOWA%2C+MINNESOTA%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+AND+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Billings, Montana; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2008). AN - 16379376; 15671 AB - PURPOSE: A design modification to the Interstate 90 (I-90) Snoqualmie Pass East Project, in Kittitas County, Washington is proposed. The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington Department of Transportation prepared a 2005 draft EIS and a 2008 final EIS for proposed improvements to a 15-mile portion of I-90 immediately east of Snoqualmie Pass in the Cascade Mountains, from Hyak at milepost 55.1 to Easton at milepost 70.3. This stretch of I-90 passes through the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. In fall 2011, the contractor constructing the portion of the I-90 project that encompasses the snowshed along Keechelus Lake proposed a design modification that would replace the existing snowshed with eastbound and westbound avalanche bridges instead of the expanded snowshed included in the alternative selected in the 2008 Record of Decision. This final supplemental EIS considers the two design options for the portion of I-90 between milepost 57.9 and milepost 58.4. The snowshed would minimize the need for highway closures due to avalanches, avalanche control, and rock fall. However, this enclosed structure requires fire and life-safety systems that are expensive to operate and maintain. The preferred avalanche bridges would provide comparable avalanche and rock fall protection and avoid the need for fire and life-safety systems. The Record of Decision documents the selection of the avalanche bridges, which would cost an estimated $71 million to construct. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The avalanche bridges would result in potential cost savings of $37 million over the 75-year design life of the structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The selected alternative will impact 3.3 acres more terrestrial habitat and require acquisition of additional highway easement area as compared to the snowshed option. Bridge construction could result in temporary, adverse impacts to a threatened population of bull trout in Keechelus Lake, but the continued existence of the coterminous population of Columbia River bull trout is not likely to be jeopardized. The existing snowshed, which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1995, will be demolished. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0640D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 08-0462F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 130069, Final EIS and Record of Decision--48 pages, March 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-FS KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Demolition KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Okanogan-Wenatcheee National Forest KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379376?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2008%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2011). AN - 16391938; 15660 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. In November 2011, the National Park Service (NPS) released a final EIS with a preferred alternative applicable only for the 2011/2012 winter season, for which the park would operate under the same interim rules and restrictions in place during the previous two seasons. NPS then promulgated a new rule to extend for one additional winter season the 2011/2012 daily entry limits and operating requirements. As of March 15, 2013, no motorized OSVs use can be allowed in the park unless a new Record of Decision is signed and a new regulation is issued. This final supplemental EIS considers four management alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), no OSVs would be allowed in the park. Alternative 2 would allow OSV use at the same levels (318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day) and with the same restrictions as have been in place the past three winter seasons. Alternative 3 would transition to snowcoaches only over a three year period beginning in the 2017/2018 winter season. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, OSV access would be managed by transportation events, with 110 total events each day. Up to 50 events would be allocated for snowmobiles and the remaining 60 for snowcoaches. A transportation event would initially equal one snowcoach or a group of, on average, seven snowmobiles traveling together within the park. This alternative would be implemented after a one-season transition period. Non-commercially guided snowmobile access would also be allowed under this alternative. Snowcoaches would be required to meet best available technology (BAT) standards starting in the 2017/2018 winter season. New BAT standards for snowmobiles would be required no later than December 2017. Voluntary enhanced BAT standards would be available to allow commercial tour operators to increase their daily average event size. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would establish a management framework that allows the public to experience the unique winter resources and values at Yellowstone National Park while ensuring resource protection. Managing by OSV transportation events is an impact-centric management approach that would minimize impacts to park resources and permit growth in visitation as new technologies become available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130058, 674 pages, March 15, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16391938?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2011%29.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+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, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 15, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEER FLAT NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, CANYON, PAYETTE, OWYHEE, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, IDAHO, AND MALHEUR COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 16390957; 15661 AB - PURPOSE: A Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 15-year management of Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located in Canyon, Payette, Owyhee, and Washington Counties, Idaho, and Malheur County, Oregon is proposed. Deer Flat NWR comprises two units, the 10,500-acre Lake Lowell Unit, which includes the 9,000-acre Lake Lowell, and the Snake River Island Unit, which comprises 104 islands totaling about 1,060 acres. The islands stretch along the Snake River for 113 river miles in Idaho and Oregon. The Refuge provides habitat for over 215 bird species and is an important resting and wintering area for birds migrating along the Pacific Flyway. The Lake Lowell Unit supports several habitat types including riparian forest, shrub-steppe, and managed agricultural lands. Lake Lowell itself is an irrigation project managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, which operates the lakes water for agricultural purposes. The Snake River islands also support riparian and shrubsteppe/grassland habitats. Both units of the Refuge receive substantial and varied public use, while the islands are further influenced by river traffic, including all types of recreational boating. Four alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), current wildlife, habitat, and public use management would continue with invasive species control and limited habitat restoration as the management focus. Under Alternative 2, which is the preferred alternative, Lake Lowells shoreline feeding and nesting sites for wintering and migratory birds would be protected by closing the lake from October 1 to April 14, establishing a 200-yard no-wake zone on the south side and in the Narrows, and expanding the southeast no-wake zone to Gotts Point. Nearly all existing recreation would continue; fishing and wildlife interpretation would be emphasized, and with increased law enforcement, Gotts Point would open to vehicles. Wildlife inventory and monitoring, invasive species control, and restoration on the Snake River Islands Unit would increase, and closures would be adjusted to protect nesting and wading birds. Wildlife observation and hunting for deer, upland species, and waterfowl would be allowed. Most islands would be open for shoreline fishing and free-roam activities from June 15 to January 31; heron- and gull-nesting islands would be open from July 1 to January 31. Under Alternative 3, Lake Lowells wildlife resources would be protected by establishing a no-wake zone in the east pool and closing some habitats seasonally or permanently. Most on-water activities would continue. Several nonwildlife-dependent upland uses would no longer be provided. Alternative 4 would provide the most wildlife habitat protection through permanent closures of many emergent plant beds and a no-wake zone on all of Lake Lowell. Only wildlife-dependent recreation would be provided on the Refuge. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CCP would: 1) enhance, maintain, and protect habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife; 2) guide responsible adaptive management decisions; 3) provide visitors compatible wildlife-dependent and nonwildlife-dependent recreational opportunities that have limited impacts to wildlife; 4) initiate and nurture relationships and develop cooperative opportunities to promote the importance of the Refuge and support stewardship; and 5) protect and manage cultural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short-term adverse impacts may occur to air quality, visitors, wildlife, or habitats from research and restoration activities. Long-term negative effects may be felt by some hunters as nonhunters are allowed off-trail. Some long-term negative effects to wildlife and habitats may occur from the construction of new public use facilities. LEGAL MANDATES: National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act (P.L. 94-233). JF - EPA number: 130059, 837 pages, March 15, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Economic Assessments KW - Hunting Management KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge KW - Idaho KW - Oregon KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16390957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DEER+FLAT+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+CANYON%2C+PAYETTE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+MALHEUR+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=DEER+FLAT+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+CANYON%2C+PAYETTE%2C+OWYHEE%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO%2C+AND+MALHEUR+COUNTY%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Nampa, Idaho; DA N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 15, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Groundwater banking opportunity in Central Valley AN - 1315950552 AB - The Bureau of Reclamation has announced the availability of up to $10 million in grants, under the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, for groundwater banking or recharge projects proposed by local agencies within the Central Valley Project. JF - Western Farm Press AU - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AD - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Y1 - 2013/03/12/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Mar 12 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1315950552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Groundwater+banking+opportunity+in+Central+Valley&rft.au=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aulast=BUREAU+OF+RECLAMATION&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Mar 12, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MILES CITY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 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, MONTANA. AN - 16383368; 15656 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives that address future management of 2.8 million acres of federal surface and 11.0 million acres of federal mineral estate in eastern Montana are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Miles City Field Office is revising and combining the Big Dry (1996) and Powder River (1985) Resource Management Plans (RMPs), as amended, into one document. The planning area covered by the Miles City RMP is characterized as a semi-arid continental regime of the Great Plains grasslands and includes 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. There are 16.9 million acres of sage-grouse habitat in the planning area, including 2.5 million acres on BLM-administered lands. The planning area also includes the Big Sky National Back Country Byway and the Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail. Major RMP issues include livestock grazing; energy development; wildlife habitat management, including sage-grouse; special designations, including areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs); special recreation management areas (SRMAs); national trails; and wilderness study areas. Five alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue current management. Oil and gas leasing would be offered on 5.4 million acres, no priority or restoration habitats would be identified for the management of greater sage-grouse, 16 designated ACECs encompassing 51,000 acres would be maintained, and livestock grazing would be allowed on 2.7 million acres and prohibited on 240 acres. Alternative B emphasizes conservation of physical, biological, heritage, and visual resources and would place additional constraints on resource uses. Oil and gas leasing would be offered on 3.3 million acres and special designations would create eight new SRMAs and six new ACECs, including a 1.1-million-acre greater sage-grouse protection priority ACEC. Alternative C emphasizes resource use opportunities and local economies within the planning area and would reduce constraints on resource uses. Monitoring and consultation with state agencies would be used to adjust restrictions for surface-disturbing activities. Alternative D would provide the widest range of uses, emphasizing recreation, mineral and energy development. Restrictions to protect resources would be implemented only to the extent necessary to meet legal requirements. Alternative D would not create any new SRMAs, but six new ACECs would be designated. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, seeks to balance resource protection with resource production. Oil and gas leasing would be offered on 5.4 million acres and livestock grazing would be allowed on 2.7 million acres and prohibited on 3,125 acres. Three greater sage-grouse protection priority areas (792,000 acres) and four restoration areas (109,000 acres) would be designated, and 21 ACECs would protect 64,600 acres. All the action alternatives identify a master leasing plan (MLP) area with medium to high potential for oil and gas occurrence in Carter County. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A single, comprehensive land use plan would sustain and restore the health and diversity of forest, rangeland, aquatic, and riparian ecosystems; support a sustainable flow of benefits to eastern Montana; and provide diverse recreational and educational opportunities. Special designations would protect significant cultural and paleontological resources as well as special status plant and animal species. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Anticipated surface-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Prairie dog, waterfowl, and bighorn sheep habitat would potentially decline under the preferred alternative. In addition, fewer acres of protection priority and restoration areas under this alternative would potentially compromise sage-grouse protections and subsequent maintenance or enhancement of sage-grouse population. Cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Surface occupancy or timing restrictions would potentially result in alteration or limitation of uses and activities. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130054, Draft EIS--1,068 pages, Appendices--515 pages, Maps--111 pages, March 8, 2013 PY - 2013 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/16383368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-08&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+AND+WIBAUX+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+AND+WIBAUX+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER AND MARSH RESTORATION PROJECT, EL DORADO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16383345; 15651 AB - PURPOSE: A restoration project along the most downstream reach of the Upper Truckee River, at the mouth of Lake Tahoe is proposed. The 592-acre study area is located in South Lake Tahoe, California, bounded by U.S. Highway 50 and the Highland Woods neighborhood to the south, the Al Tahoe neighborhood to the east, Tahoe Islands/Sky Meadows and Tahoe Keys neighborhoods to the west, and Lake Tahoe to the north. It includes the downstream reaches of Trout Creek and the Upper Truckee River, adjacent wetland (Upper Truckee Marsh) and upland habitats, and the Lower West Side Wetlands Restoration Project site. Past actions have created a need to restore river and floodplain ecosystems in the Tahoe Basin to improve the clarity of Lake Tahoe and the ecological functions of riparian, wetland, and floodplain ecosystems, including the provision of wildlife habitat. Four restoration alternatives and a No Action Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would use engineering elements (primarily structures in the channel) to cause sediment deposition that raises the channel bed and decreases channel capacity, and would slightly reduce the capacity of the channel mouth at Lake Tahoe. Other restoration would include a natural-functioning lagoon in the vicinity of the existing Sailing Lagoon, lagoon and wet meadow conditions at the Trout Creek Lagoon, floodplain functions at the TKPOA Corporation Yard, and sand ridges at Cove East Beach. A potential maximum level of public access and recreation infrastructure that includes parking, two kiosks, stabilization of an existing river access for boat take-out, observation areas, boardwalks, and a system of bicycle paths would be provided. Alternative 2 would directly raise the streambed elevation, increase the channel length, and decrease channel capacity by excavating a new river channel. The existing river mouth would be replaced with a new smaller river mouth, similar in size to the historical river mouth prior to dredging. A minimum level of public access and recreation infrastructure that includes signage, a modified pedestrian trail to Cove East Beach, five viewpoints, a boat take-out, and a fishing platform would be provided. Under Alternative 3, a pilot channel would be constructed from the existing river channel in the southern portion of the study area and connected to historical channels in the center of the study area. The existing river mouth would be retained, but its capacity would be reduced. In addition, by boring two culverts under U.S. 50, an area of isolated floodplain would be reactivated. A moderate level of public access and recreation infrastructure that includes three pedestrian trails, a bicycle path, a kiosk, one observation area, six viewpoints, a fishing platform, a boat take-out area, and signage at multiple locations would be provided. Alternative 4 would lower bank heights by excavating an inset floodplain along much of the river channel and by localized cut and fill to create meanders in the existing straightened reach. The existing river mouth would be retained and its capacity would not be reduced. Alternative 4 also would provide a moderate level of public access and recreation infrastructure. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project would restore natural geomorphic processes and ecological functions along this lowest reach of river and help reduce the rivers discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoes clarity, while still providing recreation access. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction associated with river restoration would create short-term risks of erosion, turbidity, and water quality impacts. Sensitive communities including jurisdictional wetlands and riparian vegetation could be disturbed. The project could result in flooding-related changes in the neighborhood west of the study area and noise and scenic impacts to nearby residences. Alternative 3 could disrupt fish passage and migration patterns as the channel adjusts. The expansion of recreation facilities under Alternative 1 could impact the rare Lake Tahoe endemic, Tahoe yellow cress. LEGAL MANDATES: Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 130049, Draft EIS--840 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, March 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Channels KW - Diversion Structures KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Lagoons KW - Lakes KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Sediment Control KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Lake Tahoe KW - Upper Truckee River KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+AND+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=UPPER+TRUCKEE+RIVER+AND+MARSH+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+EL+DORADO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Stateline, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFIGY MOUNDS NATIONAL MONUMENT, GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CLAYTON AND ALLAMAKEE COUNTIES, IOWA. AN - 16382011; 15657 AB - PURPOSE: A revised general management plan (GMP) for Effigy Mounds National Monument, Clayton and Allamakee counties, northeastern Iowa is proposed. The national monument contains significant archeological resources comprising one of the largest concentrations of Indian mounds in the United States, including some of the finest and best preserved examples of effigy mounds in their original forms. Land surrounding Effigy Mounds belongs to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the State of Iowa, and private landowners. Land uses in the area include agriculture, rural development, resources management, recreation, and transportation. The monument currently comprises a total of 2,526 acres in the North Unit, South Unit, Sny Magill Unit, and the Heritage Addition. The existing GMP for Effigy Mounds does not provide adequate management guidance in several key areas, including the 1,045-acre Heritage Addition which expanded the monuments land base by 70 percent and added several cultural resources. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Under the preferred alternative (Alternative B), a large portion of the monument would be zoned as backcountry and a virtual research center would be created to collect and share information on mound research and preservation. Visitor experiences throughout the monument would be primarily self-guiding on a variety of trail types in a quiet, contemplative setting to maintain an atmosphere of respect toward the sacred nature of the monument. Providing access to mounds that are in different conditions would allow an expansion of existing interpretive opportunities and an increased understanding of the monuments fundamental resources. In Alternative C, more of the monument would be placed in a discovery zone that would allow for more visitor amenities, while a research center would be developed outside of the monument. All of the alternatives would improve access to the South Unit by connecting the Yellow River bridge and trail to the trails in the South Unit. In addition, the action alternatives would include a recommendation to designate a 3.5-mile segment of the Yellow River as part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would define the resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved in the national monument for the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Building and trail construction would result in short-term, minor impacts and long-term, negligible impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife, and visual resources. There would be negligible to moderate impacts to some cultural resources, but these would be confined to localized areas and would often be offset by beneficial impacts. Trail, parking area, and contact station construction could impact cultural landscapes. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130055, 296 pages, March 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Land Management KW - Monuments KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Trails KW - Effigy Mounds National Monument KW - Iowa KW - Yellow River KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16382011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.title=EFFIGY+MOUNDS+NATIONAL+MONUMENT%2C+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CLAYTON+AND+ALLAMAKEE+COUNTIES%2C+IOWA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Harpers Ferry, Iowa; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION OF THE MARIPOSA GROVE OF GIANT SEQUOIAS, YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16381959; 15652 AB - PURPOSE: Comprehensive design alternatives for restoring 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 archeological 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 draft 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 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 South Entrance. Alternative 3 would relocate parking and visitor information services to a more centralized location in proximity to the Grizzly Giant, but outside 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 area to the new Grizzly Giant visitor parking area. The existing T-intersection would be retained at South Entrance. Alternative 4 is generally similar to Alternative 2, but the commercial tram staging area would be moved to 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 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 and archeology 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. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130050, 365 pages, March 8, 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/16381959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+OF+THE+MARIPOSA+GROVE+OF+GIANT+SEQUOIAS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+OF+THE+MARIPOSA+GROVE+OF+GIANT+SEQUOIAS%2C+YOSEMITE+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+MARIPOSA+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, Yosemite, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HOOPER SPRINGS TRANSMISSION PROJECT, CARIBOU COUNTY, IDAHO. AN - 16379354; 15654 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 EIS considers several alternatives for the proposed transmission line: 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. The 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 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Columbia River Transmission Act (16 U.S.C. 838b). JF - EPA number: 130052, Draft EIS--426 pages, Appendices--329 pages, March 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Defense Programs 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/16379354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HOOPER+SPRINGS+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=HOOPER+SPRINGS+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+CARIBOU+COUNTY%2C+IDAHO.&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 - 2013-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-06-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2014 AND 2016, EASTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALES 225 AND 226, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND FLORIDA. AN - 16392127; 15650 AB - PURPOSE: Two oil and gas lease sales within the westernmost portion of the Eastern Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida are proposed. Lease sales 225 and 226 are part of an Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) five-year leasing program and are tentatively scheduled for 2014 and 2016, respectively. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 225. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted prior to a decision on whether or how to proceed with Lease Sale 226. This draft EIS tiers from the final programmatic EIS of July 2012 for the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017. The proposed lease sales and a No Action Alternative (Alternative B) are considered. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed Eastern Planning Area lease sale area for oil and gas operations. The lease sale area covers 657,905 acres and includes those blocks previously included in the Lease Sale 224 area and a triangular-shaped area to the south. The area is south of eastern Alabama and western Florida; the nearest point of land is 125 miles northwest in Louisiana. As of February 2013, approximately 465,200 acres of the proposed lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of natural resources projected to be developed as a result of a proposed Eastern Planning Area lease sale is 0-0.071 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0-0.162 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Due to the relatively small size of the action area and the fact that there are no known blocks in proximity to biologically sensitive features, no alternatives that defer blocks are considered. Lease stipulations which could be applied include the protected species stipulation, military areas stipulation, the evacuation stipulation, and the coordination stipulation. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130048, Volume I--576 pages, Volume II--530 pages, March 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2013-0116 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 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/16392127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-03-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+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+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+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 - 2013-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SITE-WIDE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY / NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION NEVADA NATIONAL SECURITY SITE AND OFF-SITE LOCATIONS IN NEVADA. AN - 16396525; 15638 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for continued management and operation of the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) (formerly known as the Nevada Test Site) and other U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities in Nevada are proposed. The NNSS occupies 1,360 square miles of desert and mountain terrain in southern Nevada. The Remote Sensing Laboratory (RSL) is located on 35 acres at Nellis Air Force Base and the 78-acre North Las Vegas Facility (NLVF) comprises 29 buildings that support ongoing NNSS missions. The Tonopah Test Range (TTR) is a U.S. Air Force facility consisting of a 280-square-mile area on the Nevada Test and Training Range. NNSA operations at the TTR include flight-testing of gravity weapons (bombs) and research, development, and evaluation of nuclear weapons components and delivery systems. The NNSS, RSL, NLVF, and the TTR support DOE/NNSAs core missions by providing the capabilities to process and dispose of a damaged nuclear weapon or improvised nuclear device and to conduct high-hazard experiments involving special nuclear material and high explosives, non-nuclear experiments, and hydrodynamic testing. Nuclear stockpile stewardship activities at the NNSS include dynamic plutonium experiments that provide technical information to maintain the safety and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and research and training in areas such as nuclear safeguards, criticality safety, and emergency response. Special nuclear materials are also stored at the NNSS. In addition, NNSA receives low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste for disposal at the NNSS. The facility also provides opportunities for development of commercial-scale solar energy projects and development of renewable energy technologies. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this site-wide final EIS. The Expanded Operations Alternative would consider adding reasonably foreseeable new work at the NNSS in the areas of nonproliferation and counterterrorism, high hazard and other experiments, research and development and testing. The Reduced Operations Alternative would reduce the overall level of operations and close specific buildings and structures. The preferred alternative is comprised of programs, capabilities, projects, and activities selected from among the three alternatives. Under the stockpile stewardship and management program, activities would largely reflect the No Action Alternative, but with increased frequency of conventional explosives and shock physics experiments, and the Expanded Operations Alternative, under which certain functions at the TTR would be transferred to the U.S. Air Force. As identified under the Reduced Operations Alternative, the Atlas facility (designed for pulsed power experiments) would be decommissioned. Within the nuclear emergency response, nonproliferation, and counterterrorism programs, activities would also align with the No Action Alternative, except that the capability for disposition of radiological dispersion devices would be added, as well as some additional laboratory and test bed facilities. Under the waste management program, activities would generally conform to the Expanded Operations Alternative, with the exception of hazardous waste, explosive ordnance wastes, and hydrocarbon waste management activities, which would remain at current levels. The preferred alternative for general site support would be Expanded Operations, which would entail developing new facilities and upgrading existing infrastructure on much of the NNSS. For the conservation and renewable energy program, activities would closely conform to the No Action Alternative, except that a 5-MW photovoltaic solar power facility and a geothermal energy demonstration project and research center could be constructed at the NNSS. For the other research and development programs, activities would continue as described under the No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would support NNSAs missions to ensure a safe and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile, support other national security programs, characterize and remediate areas of the NNSS and offsite locations previously contaminated as a result of nuclear weapons testing, and provide for the disposal of low-level and mixed low-level radioactive waste from across the DOE complex. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air quality would be adversely impacted and expanded operations would increase land disturbance, potential for disturbance of cultural resources, hazardous wastes, and traffic on regional roads and highways. Construction and operation of one or more solar power generation facilities at the NNSS would result in the loss of desert tortoise habitat, the taking of tortoises, direct impacts on cultural resources, and increases in demand for ground water. Additional facilities at the Desert Rock Airport, solar power generation facilities, and the geothermal project would have an adverse visual impact. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Executive Order 13212, and Executive Order 13514. JF - EPA number: 130036, Summary--116 pages, Final EIS--695 pages, Appendices--444 pages, Comment Response--524 pages, February 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0426 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Military Facilities (Air Force) KW - Munitions KW - Nuclear Facilities KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Radioactive Wastes KW - Research KW - Research Facilities KW - Solar Energy KW - Storage KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Disposal KW - Waste Management KW - Water Resources KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nellis Air Force Base KW - Nevada KW - Tonopah Test Range Nevada KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13514, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16396525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.title=SITE-WIDE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+FOR+THE+CONTINUED+OPERATION+OF+THE+DEPARTMENT+OF+ENERGY+%2F+NATIONAL+NUCLEAR+SECURITY+ADMINISTRATION+NEVADA+NATIONAL+SECURITY+SITE+AND+OFF-SITE+LOCATIONS+IN+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2013-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LANDER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, PORTIONS OF FREMONT, NATRONA, CARBON, SWEETWATER, HOT SPRINGS, AND TETON COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 16381658; 15636 AB - PURPOSE: A new Resource Management Plan (RMP) for public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Lander Field Office, in west-central Wyoming is proposed. The RMP would cover 6.6 million acres of land in Fremont, Natrona, Carbon, Sweetwater, Hot Springs, and Teton counties. Within the planning area, the BLM administers 2.4 million acres of surface estate and 2.8 million acres of federal mineral estate. No BLM-administered surface or mineral estate occurs in Teton County and, therefore, no management is proposed for the lands in this county. Additional resources include nine waterway segments that are eligible for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, the 5,490-acre Little Red Creek Complex which is the only identified land with wilderness characteristics in the planning area, and five National Historic Trails. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for comparatively more limited resource development. Alternative B would result in the largest acreage proposed for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry (1.6 million acres) and the smallest area proposed for designation as open for wind-energy development (41,372 acres). Alternative C would emphasize resource development, while limiting protective management of physical, biological, and heritage resources. No lands would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and 2.3 million acres would be designated as open for wind-energy development. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to balance the use and conservation of resources by designating special resource management areas and areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), and by emphasizing moderate constraints on resource uses to reduce adverse impacts to resource values. Fish and wildlife resources would receive more protection compared to current management, including larger buffers around active raptor nests and greater sage-grouse leks. In areas of high mineral potential, designated development areas would be established. In Dubois, mineral activities would be limited and the area would be closed to oil and gas leasing for the protection of special status species and to support destination recreation associated with bighorn sheep. A heritage tourism and recreation buffer would be placed around designated trails. Under Alternative D, 42,855 acres would be withdrawn from locatable mineral entry and 459,720 acres would be designated as open for wind-energy development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM Lander Field Office are managed in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Designating the Lander Slope ACEC would protect cave and karst resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development, mining, and other mineral development would generate air pollutants. Impacts to soil resources would result from surface disturbance associated with a variety of resource programs including mineral development, road construction, and recreation such as off-highway vehicle use. Disturbance could also result in erosion and sediment delivery with adverse impacts to riparian-wetland resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130034, Volume I--666 pages, Volume II--1,306 pages, February 22, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/007+1610 KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Prevention KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=LANDER+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+PORTIONS+OF+FREMONT%2C+NATRONA%2C+CARBON%2C+SWEETWATER%2C+HOT+SPRINGS%2C+AND+TETON+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lander, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 22, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - COTTONWOOD COVE AND KATHERINE LANDING DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS, LAKE MEAD NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND MOHAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 16396453; 15631 AB - PURPOSE: New development concept plans for the Cottonwood Cove and Katherine Landing developed areas at Lake Mohave within the Lake Mead National Recreation Area (NRA), Clark County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona are proposed. Cottonwood Cove is located on the Nevada shore of the lake, 22 miles north of Davis Dam. Katherine Landing is located near the southern end of the lake in Arizona, 1.5 miles north of the Davis Dam. Both developments accommodate a variety of recreational activities and provide public launch facilities and commercial marina services as well as other public use and support facilities. The 1986 Lake Mead NRA general management plan established land-based management zones and included development concept plans for both areas. The 2003 Lake Mead NRA lake management plan established water-based management zones and provided further guidance for the long-term protection of park resources while allowing a range of recreational opportunities. Management actions identified in both approved plans require more site-specific development planning. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative 2 would implement previous planning proposals that separate day use and marina facilities, maintain the type of overnight facilities, and provide flood mitigation. The main access road at Cottonwood Cove would remain two lanes, parking capacity would be increased, and marina expansion would be allowed to the authorized carrying capacity. The preferred Alternative 3 would focus on enhancing and dispersing day use along the lakeshore at Cottonwood Cove. The site just north of the motel would be redeveloped for a combined visitor/commercial services center and a new day-use area would be developed in Ski Cove. The lower campground would be converted to a day-use picnic area during the summer season and continue to operate as a campground during the winter season. Parking capacity would be increased and marina expansion would be allowed to the authorized carrying capacity. A new paved loop road would provide an alternate route to the motel and visitor contact facility. Flood hazards would be addressed through structural protection, relocation of some facilities, and use of a flood warning system. A new law enforcement and emergency services center would be developed at the site of the existing ranger station. The motel at Katherine Landing would be removed and the site redeveloped for greatly expanded visitor parking near the lake. The boat launching and parking capacities at Princess Cove, Cabinsite Point, and North Arizona Telephone Cove would be adjusted to maintain authorized capacities for the southern portion of Lake Mohave. The unpaved overflow parking area at Princess Cove would be closed and Cabinsite Point would be closed to motorized boat launching. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An integrated plan for development with site-specific guidance for the extent, type, and location of facilities and services would be consistent with the management direction and intent established in the 1986 and 2003 plans. The flood hazard to people and property in the floodplains would be greatly reduced at both developed areas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facility construction and associated visitor use would result in long-term, minor to moderate, adverse impacts to native plant communities and soils. Any adverse impacts to desert tortoise, banded Gila monster, and Western burrowing owls would be localized. Construction of additional flood control structures would have a minor to moderate adverse impact on floodplain values. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130029, 223 pages, February 15, 2013 PY - 2013 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/16396453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=COTTONWOOD+COVE+AND+KATHERINE+LANDING+DEVELOPMENT+CONCEPT+PLANS%2C+LAKE+MEAD+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=COTTONWOOD+COVE+AND+KATHERINE+LANDING+DEVELOPMENT+CONCEPT+PLANS%2C+LAKE+MEAD+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+AND+MOHAVE+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Boulder City, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 15, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTA EAST WIND PROJECT, KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16378068; 15634 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale wind energy facility on public and private lands in southeastern Kern County, California are proposed. The Alta East Wind Project (AEWP) would be located three miles northwest of the unincorporated community of Mojave at the base of the Tehachapi Mountains in the Western Mojave Desert. Alta Windpower Development, LLC has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant for the AEWP and the BLM is considering amending the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan in connection with the project. As proposed, The AEWP would generate up to 318 megawatts (MWs) on a 2,592-acre site, of which 568 acres are private land that is under the jurisdiction of Kern County. Project components would include wind turbines, a substation, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, and temporary construction laydown areas. The total height of the wind turbine generators (WTGs) at the highest point of the rotor blade rotation would be 465 feet. The ground clearance for the rotor blades at their lowest point of rotation would be 98 feet. A 230/34.5-kilovolt (kV) substation would be constructed within the AEWP site and a new, 12.8-mile-long, 230-kV transmission line would connect the substation with the Alta Infill II Project. This final EIS analyzes seven alternatives. Under Alternative A, BLM would grant a ROW for the AEWP as proposed with 106 wind turbines. Alternative B would implement a revised site layout, relocating a number of WTG locations and the access roads. Alternative C would eliminate the northern most central parcel within the Alternative A boundary, which is north of State Route 58, to reduce potential impacts to biological resources (including impacts to desert tortoise and golden eagle). This alternative would include a total of 97 WTGs capable of generating up to 291 MWs. The Alternative C area would comprise 2,272 acres, reducing the amount of BLM lands utilized to a total of 1,705 acres. Alternative D would eliminate the southwestern most parcel within the Alternative A boundary to reduce potential impacts to livestock grazing. Alternative D would include a total of 87 WTGs capable of generating up to 267 MWs and the facility site area would comprise 2,039 acres, reducing the amount of BLM lands utilized to a total of 1,472 acres. Under Alternative E (No Action Alternative), the ROW application would be denied and the BLM would not amend the CDCA Plan. Two No Project alternatives would amend the CDCA Plan to identify the project area as unsuitable (Alternative F) or suitable (Alternative G) for solar energy development. The Reduced Project North Alternative (Alternative C) is preferred by the BLM. Construction of the AEWP is anticipated to require 9 to 12 months to complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The AEWP would provide renewable electric power to Californias existing transmission grid to help meet federal and State renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. The project would create temporary and permanent jobs, increase the tax base of Kern County, provide increased revenue to BLM for the use of the federal land, and provide revenue to county residents. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, construction would cause 519.5 acres of temporary disturbance and 85.4 acres of permanent disturbance to nine sensitive vegetation communities. Construction activities would impact air quality, create significant noise and vibration, and could require suspension of grazing. Wildlife habitat and migration corridors would be displaced. Despite mitigation, construction and operation would impact California condor, golden eagle, Swainson's hawk, burrowing owl, and bats. Required lighting and the project contribution to overall industrial character would degrade the existing visual character of the area. 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: 130032, Volume 1--320 pages, Volume 2A--547 pages, Volume 2B--487 pages, Volume 3--666 pages, Volume 4--756 pages, Volume 5--872 pages, February 15, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2013-011+1793 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife 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/16378068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTA+EAST+WIND+PROJECT%2C+KERN+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=ALTA+EAST+WIND+PROJECT%2C+KERN+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 - 2013-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 15, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WATER TRANSFER PROGRAM FOR THE SAN JOAQUIN RIVER EXCHANGE CONTRACTORS WATER AUTHORITY, 2014-2038, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1347250104; 15625 AB - PURPOSE: A new water transfer program from the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (Exchange Contractors) to several potential users over a 25-year time frame, largely within the San Joaquin Valley of Central California, is proposed. The water from the Exchange Contractors would be transferred to San Joaquin Valley wildlife refuges, to other Central Valley Project (CVP) contractors, or to State Water Project (SWP) contractors west and south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, specifically Kern County Water Agency, East Bay Municipal Utility District, Contra Costa Water District, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency, and Santa Clara Valley Water District. The Exchange Contractors propose to develop the water from conservation (including tailwater recovery) and crop idling/temporary land fallowing activities. The need for water supplies to the wildlife refuges is a requirement in the Central Valley Project Improvement Act that directs the Secretary of the Interior to acquire incremental water through voluntary measures. Another purpose of the proposed program is the continued periodic and conditional transfer of water from the Exchange Contractors, when conditions permit, to water districts to provide irrigation water for agricultural use. In most years, CVP/SWP contractors do not receive full contract amounts, and seasonal irrigation water deficits occur under all but the wettest hydrologic conditions. The existing program consists of the transfer of up to 130,000 acre-feet of substitute water annually from the Exchange Contractors. The new program would expand the project area from Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Benito, San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties to include an additional four counties (Contra Costa, Alameda, Monterey, and Santa Cruz). Five alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, the transfer or exchange of water from the Exchange Contractors to either the Bureau of Reclamation or to any of the other potential water users would cease at the conclusion of the existing program on February 28, 2014. The four action alternatives are based on the quantity of water and sources of supply. Each action alternative has a range of subalternatives or scenarios based not only on the source of supply but also on potential water users and whether these users are hydraulically connected to the San Joaquin River. Alternatives A, B, C, and D would provide for the transfer and/or exchange of 50,000 acre-feet, 88,000 acre-feet, 130,000 acre-feet, and 150,000 acre-feet of substitute water, respectively. Under the action alternatives, the Exchange Contractors would continue to employ their tailwater recovery efforts and supplement their tailwater recapture program with other conserved water. Assuming a maximum of 150,000 acre-feet total from all sources, up to 100,000 acre-feet would be tailwater recapture and other conservation efforts, and up to 50,000 acre-feet would be developed through temporary land fallowing in any year. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, expands upon the level of maximum transfer contemplated under the existing 10-Year (20052014) water transfer program with an additional 20,000 acre-feet from conservation measures not already considered in the other alternatives. These measures include the lining of canals and implementation of on-farm irrigation or district conveyance system improvements that would not have a hydrologic effect on the San Joaquin River. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new program of temporary annual water transfers and/or exchanges would maximize the use of limited water resources for agriculture, fish and wildlife resources, and municipal and industrial purposes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Minor decreases in flows in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries of up to two cubic feet per second, as well as potential changes in storage in New Melones Reservoir, could occur. Tailwater recovery, other conservation measures, and temporary land fallowing could affect groundwater recharge and outflows. Land fallowing could result in increased fugitive dust and combustion emissions. Decreased crop production would reduce the demand for farm labor and impact environmental justice communities. However, the economic impacts of the proposed program are anticipated to be minor when evaluated in the context of the size of the regional economy. LEGAL MANDATES: Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. JF - EPA number: 130023, Final EIS--414 pages, Appendices--457 pages, February 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Water KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farm Management KW - Hydrology KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Preserves KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992, Compliance KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1347250104?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2014-2038%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+VALLEY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WATER+TRANSFER+PROGRAM+FOR+THE+SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+EXCHANGE+CONTRACTORS+WATER+AUTHORITY%2C+2014-2038%2C+SAN+JOAQUIN+VALLEY%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 - 2013-04-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BROOKS RIVER VISITOR ACCESS, KATMAI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE, ALASKA. AN - 1347250099; 15624 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a bridge and boardwalks to replace the current floating bridge and associated trails at the Brooks River area of Katmai National Park and Preserve, Alaska is proposed. The park and preserve encompass 4.1 million acres at the head of the Alaska Peninsula, about 290 miles southwest of Anchorage. Brooks Camp, on the shore of Naknek Lake, is one of the parks primary visitor destinations. Most visitors arrive via floatplanes that beach either on the shore of Naknek Lake or on adjacent Lake Brooks. To reach bear viewing platforms, the Valley of Ten Thousand Smokes Road, Brooks Lodge or the campground, visitors must cross Brooks River on a floating bridge which is eight feet wide and 320 feet long. During the peak bear use periods of late June through July and September, brown bear activity near the bridge intermittently delays river crossings. The National Park Service (NPS) is also considering the relocation of the existing barge landing and access road away from the mouth of Brooks River. Five alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), NPS would continue to install and remove the bridge each spring and fall. The barge landing and associated road would remain on the south side of Brooks River. Alternative 2 would involve construction of a new 1,600-foot bridge and boardwalk system across the Brooks River. The barge landing site would be relocated about 2,000 feet south and require the construction of a new access road. Under Alternative 3, a pre-engineered bridge would be installed as part of an 850-foot-long bridge and boardwalk system. The barge landing site would be located 200 feet south of the mouth of the Brooks River and generally use the existing access road. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, pedestrians and vehicles would use a 1,550-foot-long boardwalk and bridge system with access points on the north and the south sides of Brooks River. The new 350-foot-long wooden bridge would have a minimum distance of 24 feet between piles. The barge landing would be located on Naknek Lake about 2,000 feet south of the existing landing, and a new access road, 1,500 feet long and 14 feet wide, would intersect the Valley Road and extend to the new landing site. Under Alternative 5, the bridge and boardwalk system would have a total length of 1,100 feet. The bridge would be as in Alternative 4 and the barge landing site would be relocated 2,000 feet south and would require the construction of a new access road. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new elevated bridge and boardwalk would facilitate dependable safe access across Brooks River, reduce the number of bear-human interactions, minimize NPS barge operation delays, and improve visitor experience. In addition, the proposed action would advance the phased relocation of facilities and park operations from the north side of Brooks River at Naknek Lake to the south side of the river as called for in the 1996 Brooks River Area Development Concept Plan. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb vegetation and wetlands, create impacts on hydrology and floodplains, increase the risk of invasive plant infestations, and disturb brown bears and other wildlife. The preferred alternative would directly displace an estimated total of 1.5 acres of wetland and upland vegetation. Permanent pile systems in the river channel would have moderate, adverse, and localized effect on salmon, rainbow trout, and arctic grayling. The access road would introduce human disturbances and noises to an area of bald eagle nesting, foraging, and roosting. The preferred alternative would have minor adverse impacts on archeological resources and moderate adverse impacts on historic structures contributing to the significance of the Brooks Camp historic district. The presence of an elevated permanent bridge and boardwalk system could affect the visual resources of the otherwise rustic setting. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130022, 408 pages, February 8, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Barges KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrology KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Brooks River KW - Katmai National Park and Preserve KW - Naknek Lake KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1347250099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BROOKS+RIVER+VISITOR+ACCESS%2C+KATMAI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=BROOKS+RIVER+VISITOR+ACCESS%2C+KATMAI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 8, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1347250078; 15620 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians on a 145-acre property adjacent to the city of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. Of the 2,697 total members of the Spokane Tribe, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 43 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 1,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. Operation would generate an estimated $6.3 million in federal tax revenues and $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. Increased traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at ten intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130018, Response to Comments--710 pages, Final EIS and Appendices--505 pages, February 1, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Washington 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/1347250078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2013-04-30 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 1, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE MEREDITH NATIONAL RECREATION AREA OFF-ROAD VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HUTCHINSON, MOORE, AND POTTER COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 1345480349; 15613 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of off-road vehicle (ORV) use over the next 15 to 20 years at Lake Meredith National Recreation Area (NRA) in Hutchinson, Moore, and Potter counties, Texas are proposed. Lake Meredith was created by the construction of the Sanford Dam on the Canadian River in 1965 and the 44,977-acre Lake Meredith NRA provides opportunities for access to diverse, affordable outdoor land- and water-based recreation activities. Lake Meredith and the Canadian River basin in the recreation area provide aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats, and one of the few areas in the region with trees. Two areas of Lake Meredith NRA are currently designated as ORV areas: Rosita (also known as Rosita Flats), with approximately 1,740 acres for ORV use below the 3,000-foot elevation line; and Blue Creek, with 275 acres for ORV use. Rosita Flats is a riparian area of the Canadian River at the southern end of the NRA. The Blue Creek ORV use area is in the Blue Creek riparian area which empties into Lake Meredith. Historically the local community used these two areas for recreation prior to the establishment of the Sanford River Project. Today, the intensity of ORV use affects natural and cultural resources and results in visitor use conflicts. This draft EIS assesses the impacts that could result from continuing current management (Alternative A) or implementation of any of three action alternatives. Under Alternative B, the designation of routes and areas would, in part, be based on a zoning system, with one of the purposes being the separation of visitor uses that have the potential to conflict with one another. Established zones could include camping only, hunting, resource protection, low-speed, and beginner. At Rosita Flats, two areas would be established as an ORV area and open to ORV use: 1) the area south of the river (currently denuded of vegetation) and 2) the area east of Bull Taco Hill. Access to the riverbed from the ORV use area south of the river would be from designated access points only. Outside the two ORV use areas, ORV use would be permitted only on designated, marked routes. At Blue Creek, ORVs would be allowed only on sandy bottom areas and designated routes, with ORV use prohibited on vegetated areas. Under Alternative C, ORV use would be managed through a permit system as well as through the establishment of use limits. Permits would include a fee and initially there would be no limit on the number of permits issued. ORV routes and areas would be the same as those under Alternative B, except that there would be one designated ORV use area in Rosita Flats, instead of two. Under Alternative D, the designation of routes and areas would, in part, be based on a zoning system, with one of the purposes being the separation of visitor uses that have the potential to conflict with one another, similar to the system under Alternative B. In addition, a fee permit system would be instituted that would allow Lake Meredith NRA to provide additional enforcement and amenities in the ORV use area, but would not establish use limits. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ORV management plan would provide for sustainable recreational ORV use areas, address the lack of an approved plan, minimize and correct damage to resources, and address the change in numbers, power, range, and capabilities of ORVs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Continued ORV use would result in moderate adverse impacts on soils and would incrementally contribute to erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Minor impacts on vegetation could occur in areas open to ORV use. Moderate adverse impacts on wildlife and wildlife habitat could occur, but impacts would be less than under Alternative A as a result of increased resource management. Similarly, adverse impacts on the endangered Arkansas River shiner would be less than under Alternative A. Impacts on archaeological resources could occur along or near open ORV areas, routes, or access points. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 11644 and National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130011, 540 pages, January 25, 2013 PY - 2013 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/1345480349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-25&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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-24 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 25, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRAND JUNCTION FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MESA, GARFIELD, MONTROSE, AND RIO BLANCO COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 1345480345; 15612 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Grand Junction Field Office, in Mesa, Garfield, Montrose, and Rio Blanco counties, Colorado are proposed. The planning area is composed of BLM, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and State of Colorado lands, and includes nearly 1.1 million acres of BLM-administered public lands and 1.2 million acres of federal mineral estate. Four alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), present management direction based on the 1987 Resource Management Plan (RMP) would continue and 1.13 million acres (92 percent) of federal mineral estate would remain open to oil and gas and geothermal leasing. This alternative includes the fewest no surface occupancy (NSO) and controlled surface use (CSU) stipulations (433,000 acres and 74,100 acres respectively) of any alternative. Alternative B would balance resources among competing human interests, land uses, and the conservation of natural and cultural resource values, while sustaining the ecological integrity of certain key habitats for plant, wildlife, and fish species. Alternative C would emphasize non-consumptive use and management of resources through protection, restoration, and enhancement, while also providing for multiple uses, including livestock grazing and mineral development. This alternative would establish the greatest number of special designation areas, with specific measures to protect or enhance resource values within these areas. Alternative D would emphasize active management for natural resources, commodity production, and public use opportunities. Resource uses, such as recreation, livestock grazing, mineral leasing and development, would be emphasized. Alternative B is the preferred alternative. Key actions would include: management of 170,500 acres as wildlife emphasis areas; management of 24,400 acres outside of current wilderness study areas to protect wilderness characteristics; designation of 106,000 acres as areas of critical environmental concern; implementation of additional stipulations and restrictions to reduce impacts from resource uses; designation of three special recreation management areas; and identification of 12,200 acres of solar energy emphasis areas and 2,600 acres of wind energy emphasis areas. Under Alternative B, 1.03 million acres of federal mineral estate would be open to future oil and gas and geothermal leasing, a nine percent decrease from Alternative A. In addition, 20,700 acres would be petitioned for withdrawal from locatable mineral entry and 586,600 acres would be closed or limited to the disposition of salable materials. This includes 252,400 acres closed to mineral material development (eight percent fewer acres than under Alternative A) plus 307,000 acres open to mineral material development with NSO stipulations. Roads and trails open to public use would decline by 784 miles (24 percent) compared to Alternative A. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, a CSU stipulation requiring sub-surface inventories for deep sub-surface-disturbing activities and buried rights-of-way (ROWs) in Indian Creek, Grand Mesa Slopes, and Sunnyside would be applied in an attempt to minimizing sub-surface disturbances in these areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP revision would ensure that public lands are managed in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. Compared to baseline, proposed restrictions and stipulations related to solid and fluid mineral leasing and development would result in reduced impacts on air quality, water quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Elimination of cross-country motorized use and reduction in acres open to intensive use (reduced 57 percent from Alternative A) would protect Gunnison sage-grouse. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral and energy development would increase erosion, impact plant communities, and result in unavoidable long-term wildlife habitat loss. Losses or damage to forage from development of resources would affect livestock, wildlife, and wild horses. Damage to cultural and paleontological resources from permitted activities could occur. Recreational activities, development of mineral resources, and general use of the planning area would increase the probability of wildland fire occurrence and could affect the visual landscape. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130010, Volume I--610 pages, Volume II--685 pages, Volume III--724 pages, January 25, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/CO/PL-12/004 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/1345480345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-25&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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-24 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 25, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 1345480255; 15611 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii is proposed. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Alternative B would retain all aspects of the current management program including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130009, 526 pages, January 25, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1345480255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-25&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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-24 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 25, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, VIRGINIA AND NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 1327721180; 15610 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina for the next 20 or more years are proposed. The parkway is 469 miles long, traverses the central and southern Appalachian Mountains, and connects Shenandoah National Park to the north with Great Smoky Mountains National Park to the south. Created as a national rural roadway with limited access, the parkway was designed for recreational driving free from commercial traffic. The parkway encompasses 82,000 acres of federal land and shares over 1,000 miles of boundary with some 4,000 adjacent landowners, eight associated federally recognized tribal governments, 29 counties, and several towns and cities. The parkway offers 500,000 acres of scenic viewsheds within a mile of its boundary. There are 199 public secondary at-grade access points from regional road systems. Many of these roads have recently been or are in the process of being improved by the states of North Carolina and Virginia, resulting in more residential development, traffic, and loss of scenery adjacent to the parkway. The National Park Service master plan for the Blue Ridge Parkway is outdated and an array of issues requires guidance through an approved General Management Plan (GMP). Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would emphasize the original parkway design and traditional driving experience. The self-contained, scenic recreational driving experience and designed landscape would be supported by recreation areas providing enhanced opportunities for dispersed outdoor recreation activities. Specific management zones detailing acceptable resource conditions, visitor experience and use levels, and appropriate activities and development would be applied to parkway lands. This alternative would also seek to enhance resource protection, regional natural resource connectivity, and build stronger connections with adjacent communities. Under Alternative C, more emphasis would be placed on reaching out to communities and linking to regional natural, recreational, and cultural heritage resources and experiences. A variety of more modern recreational and visitor service amenities would be provided, including a paved multiuse trail which would be developed parallel to the parkway along portions of the Highlands segment in the Boone/Blowing Rock area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A GMP would define resource conditions and visitor experiences to be achieved and provide a framework for making decisions about parkway resources, visitor experience opportunities, visitor use, and development of facilities. The natural and special natural resource zones proposed under Alternative B would result in long-term minor to moderate beneficial impacts on vegetation and wildlife habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The designation of 10,139 acres (12.3 percent) of parkway lands as recreation zone under Alternative B would create adverse impacts such as vegetation loss, wildlife habitat alternations, and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Increased disturbances to wildlife would also result from more visitors to the less accessible areas of the parkway. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). JF - EPA number: 130008, 712 pages, January 18, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blue Ridge Parkway KW - North Carolina KW - Virginia KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1327721180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=BLUE+RIDGE+PARKWAY+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+VIRGINIA+AND+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Asheville, North Carolina; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 18, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-17 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Endangered Species Act hits 40th birthday AN - 1269500489 AB - The bald eagle, brown pelican, Lake Erie watersnake, American alligator and Maguire daisy are all species that were on the brink of extinction, but have successfully rebounded. The wood stork, Kirtland's warbler, Okaloosa darter, black-footed ferret and Louisiana black bear are also listed species that are showing significant progress towards recovery. JF - Western Farm Press AU - USFWS AD - USFWS Y1 - 2013/01/15/ PY - 2013 DA - 2013 Jan 15 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1269500489?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Endangered+Species+Act+hits+40th+birthday&rft.au=USFWS&rft.aulast=USFWS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Jan 15, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SHULUUK WIND PROJECT, CAMPO INDIAN RESERVATION, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1327721175; 15603 AB - PURPOSE: Development of the Shuluuk Wind Energy Project on the Campo Indian Reservation in southeastern San Diego County, California is proposed. The Campo Band of Mission Indians has requested approval of a lease between the Tribe and Invenergy Wind California, LLC (IWC), which would allow IWC to construct and operate a renewable energy generation project for 25 years on the Reservation, with the possibility of a 10-year extension. The project would be powered primarily by wind and may include some solar energy. The 16,000-acre Campo Indian Reservation includes lands both north and south of Interstate 8 (I-8) along the Tecate Divide, extending from the Manzanita Indian Reservation south to a point 0.25 mile north of the U.S./Mexico International Border. The Reservation is located in the vicinity of the communities of Boulevard, Jacumba, and Live Oak Springs, and is bisected by Church Road. The study area covers 4,660 acres on the Reservation, but the total area disturbed by the project would be substantially less. Three build alternatives and a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 would consist of constructing and operating up to 85 wind turbines that would generate a total of approximately 250 megawatts (MW). Alternative 2 would consist of constructing and operating up to 80 wind turbines and 40 solar photovoltaic (PV) panels that would generate a total of 200 MW. The solar portion of the project would be constructed on 150 acres in the southeastern portion of the Reservation. Alternative 3 would consist of constructing and operating up to 71 wind turbines that would generate approximately 160 MW, or a smaller number of turbines of higher individual generating capacity (up to three MW). The turbines would have a tower hub height of up to 309 feet, a rotor diameter of up to 414 feet, and a total height to tip of up to 515 feet. Each turbine would be set on a concrete foundation and would be connected by underground electrical cable to a project substation sited on two acres. Up to five miles of new three-phase 138-kilovolt overhead interconnection transmission circuit would be constructed within the Reservation from the project collector substation to a utility switchpole located on private land. Other required facilities, all located within the Reservation, would include: up to three permanent meteorological towers; temporary material laydown areas during construction; temporary office areas; an operations and maintenance facility; 25 miles of new access roads; 22 miles of improved existing roads; and a temporary concrete batch plant. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to take between 11 and 24 months. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Shuluuk Wind Energy Project would improve the economic conditions of the Tribe through lease revenue and job creation. Utilizing the renewable wind resource that is found in abundance on the Reservation would help meet existing and future regional electricity demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would adversely affect riparian and wetland vegetation communities, disturb wildlife habitat, and permanently remove 127 to 284 acres of habitat for the federally listed Quino checkerspot butterfly. Adverse effects to the Quino, least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, California condor, and golden eagle would be mitigated. Wind turbine operation would cause mortality and injury of bats and migratory birds. Public safety impacts would include risk related to roadway safety during construction, possible rotor blade breakage, and potential collapse of a wind turbine. The project would generate noise levels in excess of applicable standards and create significant adverse effects to visual resources. Minority and low-income populations on the Reservation would be disproportionately affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130001, Draft EIS--579 pages, Appendices--1,210 pages, January 11, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Indian Reservations KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Solar Energy KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands 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/1327721175?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SHULUUK+WIND+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SHULUUK+WIND+PROJECT%2C+CAMPO+INDIAN+RESERVATION%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Riverside, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HARDROCK MINERAL LEASING IN THE WHITE MOUNTAINS NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE EASTERN INTERIOR DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN OF FEBRUARY 2012). AN - 1327721174; 15602 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for possible exploration and leasing of hardrock minerals on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the White Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA) of Alaska are proposed. The draft EIS and Eastern Interior Resource Management Plan (RMP) of February 2012 addressed hardrock mineral leasing in the White Mountains NRA as an alternative considered, but not analyzed in detail. According to the BLM's initial interpretation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act and leasing regulations, only holders of valid mining claims could qualify for a lease; and no more such claims are located in the White Mountains NRA. Public comments in response to the draft RMP/EIS raised issues on leasing, and further legal research led the BLM to conclude that their initial interpretation was incorrect. This draft supplement amends Alternative D to recommend opening 160,000 acres (16 percent) of the lands in the White Mountains NRA to possible exploration and leasing of hardrock minerals, including placer gold and rare earth elements. The other alternatives remain as described in the draft Eastern Interior RMP/EIS. Under the BLM's preferred alternative (Alternative C), no lands within the White Mountains NRA would be recommended open to leasing of hardrock minerals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Alternative D would open access to a known deposit of rare earth elements in the White Mountains to meet greatly increased demand for these metals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mineral leasing and associated access would increase the likelihood of the introduction, establishment, and spread of nonnative invasive plants. Native vegetation, mostly riparian and wetland habitats, would be lost on an estimated 661 acres and placer mining could result in substantial impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats and species. Subsistence impacts would include user conflicts, displacement of resources, and potential declines in resource availability due to disturbance in critical habitats (spawning) or during critical times (caribou calving). Historic and prehistoric sites could be disturbed and visual resources within the area open to mineral leasing would be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 130000, 79 pages, January 11, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DES 12-11 KW - Exploration KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Subsistence KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - White Mountains National Recreation Area KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1327721174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HARDROCK+MINERAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WHITE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+EASTERN+INTERIOR+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+OF+FEBRUARY+2012%29.&rft.title=HARDROCK+MINERAL+LEASING+IN+THE+WHITE+MOUNTAINS+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+EASTERN+INTERIOR+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+OF+FEBRUARY+2012%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 11, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-17 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VANTAGE TO POMONA HEIGHTS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BENTON, GRANT, KITTITAS, AND YAKIMA COUNTIES. AN - 1325327387; 15599 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in south-central Washington is proposed. Pacific Power, a regulated utility serving 730,000 customers in Oregon, Washington, and northern California, filed separate right-of-way (ROW) applications with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Spokane District Office and U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis-McChord Yakima Training Center in October 2008 for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Vantage to Pomona Heights transmission line and associated facilities. The project area extends from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) Vantage substation located just east of the Wanapum Dam in Gant County to Pacific Power's Pomona Heights substation located just east of Selah, Washington in Yakima County. Pacific Power has submitted an interconnection request to BPA to interconnect the proposed new transmission line to BPAs Vantage substation. A total of eight transmission line route alternatives are considered in this draft EIS, along with the No Action alternative. The eight end-to-end route alternatives range from 61 to 67 miles in length and cross portions of Benton, Grant, Kittitas, and Yakima counties. Most of the transmission line would be constructed on H-frame wood structures between 65 and 90 feet tall. In developed or agricultural areas single wood or steel monopole structures between 80 and 110 feet tall would be used. The transmission line would cross the Columbia River either near BPAs existing Midway Substation or below the Wanapum Dam on steel lattice structures approximately 200 feet tall. Alternative D, which is the agency preferred alternative, would extend a total of 66.3 miles, including 23.3 miles on Federal lands. The route would parallel existing transmission lines for 15.3 miles and would include a 0.4-mile crossing of the Columbia River. Thirty-seven miles of new access road would be required. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would eliminate redistributed loads and the overloading of the adjacent transmission system and would ensure continued reliable and efficient service to the Yakima Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the preferred route would permanently remove and disturb 66.1 acres of vegetation. Four acres of farmland could be displaced and the transmission line would traverse 26.1 miles of high sensitivity habitat including riparian, perennial streams/marsh, sagebrush/perennial grassland, and tree (aspen and poplar). Greater sage-grouse could be disturbed and displaced from habitats during critical breeding periods. Visual impacts would be high along 16.5 miles of the route and impacts to architectural resources and traditional cultural properties that are eligible to the National Register are possible in each of the route segments. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120404, 1,046 pages, January 4, 2013 PY - 2013 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-OR-134-2013-0002-EIS 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/1325327387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2013-01-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VANTAGE+TO+POMONA+HEIGHTS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BENTON%2C+GRANT%2C+KITTITAS%2C+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES.&rft.title=VANTAGE+TO+POMONA+HEIGHTS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BENTON%2C+GRANT%2C+KITTITAS%2C+AND+YAKIMA+COUNTIES.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Wenatchee, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 4, 2013 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 16397276; 15593 AB - PURPOSE: A management plan for the Ice Age Complex, an area containing an outstanding collection of glacial landforms, located just west of Madison, Wisconsin is proposed. The Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains has been deemed nationally significant under two federal designations: 1) Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and 2) Ice Age National Scenic Trail. In addition to National Park Service (NPS) land, the Ice Age Complex includes public land owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Dane County, Wisconsin. The 1,200-mile Ice Age Trail connects six of the nine units that make up the Ice Age Reserve, generally following the terminal moraine and other glacial landscape features. Currently, the Ice Age Complex is undeveloped for visitor use and minimally maintained. The lands owned by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and NPS have no improvements to facilitate visitor experience. The Shoveler Sink waterfowl production area, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is open to visitors for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent activities, but has no visitor facilities other than two small unsurfaced parking lots. Privately owned lands in the complex consist of agricultural fields, along with several homes and their outbuildings. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, ecological restoration would be emphasized to support interpretation of how natural conditions would have evolved after the glacial period under minimal human influence. Alternative 3 would emphasize interpretation and education and would expand the 1,473-acre complex boundary westward to include a 228-acre, WDNR-protected parcel. Alternative 4 would include the same expansion, but would emphasize outdoor recreation opportunities. Alternative 5 is the preferred alternative and would provide visitors with interpretation of the evolution of the complex from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy outdoor recreation. The most sensitive ecological areas would be protected, and visitor access would be highly controlled in these areas. The boundary would be expanded to incorporate both the 228-acre parcel mentioned above, and another 40-acre parcel protected and owned by the WDNR, so that the total size of the complex would be 1,741 acres. The Ice Age Complex would serve as the headquarters for the Ice Age Trail, and the former Wilkie property at the core of the site would be developed to accommodate offices for staff and a visitor center. Total one-time costs of implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $7.1 million in 2010 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would establish a framework to assist in making decisions for managing the Ice Age Complex over the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could cause soil erosion and compaction. There would be minor adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation. LEGAL MANDATES: National Trails System Act of 1968. JF - EPA number: 120398, 190 pages, December 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Land Management KW - Geologic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Ice Age National Scenic Trail KW - Wisconsin KW - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16397276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ICE+AGE+COMPLEX+AT+CROSS+PLAINS+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ICE+AGE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DANE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ICE+AGE+COMPLEX+AT+CROSS+PLAINS+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ICE+AGE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DANE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA. AN - 1325327405; 15592 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of federal lands within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. BLM-managed lands total approximately 22.6 million acres of surface and subsurface estate, approximately 429,000 of which are in bays, inlets, and lagoons. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. Of particular interest is the potential impact of development near Teshekpuk Lake, which is considered to have high oil and gas development potential, but is also of great importance for waterfowl, caribou, and subsistence. The lands near Teshekpuk Lake are currently deferred from leasing until 2018, and all alternatives will honor the leasing deferrals until their expiration. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Five alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and reflects current management of the NPR-A established in the 2004 and 2008 records of decision for the Northwest and Northeast NPR-A, respectively, and the Colville River Special Area Management Plan of 2008. Current management makes 13 million acres, or 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface, available for oil and gas leasing while maintaining surface resource protection in four special management areas covering 8.3 million acres. Alternatives B-1, B-2, C, and D would make between 48 and 100 percent of the total subsurface of the NPR-A, including unleased and currently leased lands, available for oil and gas leasing. These alternatives would make roughly two-thirds to all of the economically recoverable oil production possible, and nearly half to all of the economically recoverable gas production possible from BLMs subsurface estate in the NPR-A. The alternatives would also add zero to 7.2 million acres in designated special areas, and recommend zero to 12 rivers within the NPR-A for inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers system. The preferred alternative (Alternative B-2) would make 11.8 million acres, or 52 percent of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Approximately 1.9 million acres would be added to the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area and a new Peard Bay Special Area would be created, expanding special areas in the NPR-A to 13.35 million acres. The BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation and would not prohibit new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, including pipelines and other infrastructure that would be necessary to transport offshore oil, in most of a large area of lands east of Barrow or in Kasegaluk Lagoon and Peard Bay. This would allow an opportunity for a pipeline to come ashore from the Beaufort Sea, and provides greater flexibility for landfall locations for a pipeline from the Chukchi Sea. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas while protecting surface resources. The preferred plan would provide access to an estimated 549 million barrels of economically recoverable oil and 8.7 trillion cubic feet of economically recoverable natural gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploration and development activities would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 04-0179F, Volume 28, Number 2. For the abstract of the final supplemental EIS on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120397, Volume 1--532 pages, Volume 2--493 pages, Volume 3--349 pages, Volume 4--351 pages, Volume 5--524 pages, Volume 6--303 pages, Volume 7--79 maps, December 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - WildlifeSurveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1325327405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT APPROACH CHANNEL, SACRAMENTO, EL DORADO, AND PLACER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2007). AN - 1325327354; 15591 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an auxiliary spillway approach channel adjacent to Folsom Dam on the American River in Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer counties, California is proposed. The spillway is a major feature of the Folsom Dam Modification Project, also referred to as the Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction Project or Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP). The current spillway and outlets at the Folsom facility do not have sufficient discharge capacity for managing the predicted probable maximum flood and lesser flood event inflows above a 100-year event. The JFP is a cooperative effort between the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. After a final EIS was issued in March 2007, an auxiliary spillway adjacent to the dam was selected as the plan to meet dam safety risk reduction and flood damage reduction objectives. The project involves the construction of a control structure, spillway chute, stilling basin and approaching channel. The new control structure will operate in conjunction with existing spillway gates on Folsom Dam to manage flood flows from the Folsom Reservoir. Construction of the Folsom JFP was initiated in the fall of 2007, with the Bureau of Reclamation acting as the lead agency for the first two phases. This final supplemental EIS analyzes excavation alternatives for the approach channel and other auxiliary spillway features upstream of the gated control structure. Three alternatives are considered: a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), use of a cutoff wall during excavation (Alternative 2), and the use of a cofferdam during excavation (Alternative 3). The primary and permanent structures proposed under both build alternatives consist of a 1,100-foot-long excavated approach channel and a spur dike. A transload facility would be needed for mobilization and demobilization of marine equipment, dredge spoil off-loading from barges to trucks, marine equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges, equipment maintenance, and marine crew deployment. A combination of ripping and blasting would be required to facilitate rock excavation. As sufficient material is removed, the approach channel slab and concrete walls would be installed. Alternative 2 is the preferred plan for excavation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new auxiliary spillway will address the need to safely pass part of or the entire probable maximum flood event. Increasing the discharge capability and increasing storage will potentially achieve the goal of greater than 200-year flood protection. Alternative 2 is expected to provide continuous dam safety and public protection while realizing total project objectives at an earlier date. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in permanent adverse impacts to 11.5 acres of waters of the United States, temporary impacts to 88.5 acres of open water, and loss of 15.8 acres of habitat. Risks to water quality include significant turbidity, mobilization of existing sediment contaminants, and chemical, gas and oil introduction into the reservoir. Turbidity and blasting could have sublethal and lethal effects on individual fish. Construction would increase noise levels, affecting local recreationists and adjacent residents. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53), and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0156D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120396, Final Supplemental EIS--346 pages, Appendices--352 pages, December 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Barges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1325327354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT+APPROACH+CHANNEL%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+AND+PLACER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2007%29.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT+APPROACH+CHANNEL%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+AND+PLACER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MCCOY SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16395561; 15586 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an up to 750-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic solar energy plant on federal and private land in Riverside County, California is proposed. McCoy Solar, LLC, a subsidiary of NextEra Energy Resources LLC, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a 7,700-acre right-of-way (ROW) grant for construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of the McCoy Solar Energy Project. The project site is located 13 miles northwest of Blythe, California, and 32 miles east of Desert Center. The BLM is proposing to amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan of 1980 (CDCA Plan) by designating the project area as available for solar energy projects. This final EIS considers four alternatives. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would include two solar power plants identified as Unit 1 and Unit 2 with a combined capacity of up to 750 MW. Additional facilities would include a 14.5-mile double-circuit, overhead 230-kilovolt generation-tie (gen-tie) line; an access road; a two-acre switch yard located adjacent to Southern California Edison's Colorado River Substation; and a distribution line which would provide power to the site. Project facilities would be sited on 3,960 acres of BLM-administered land and 477 acres of privately owned land under county jurisdiction. Alternative 2 would consist only of Unit 1, for a capacity of 250 MW. This reduced acreage alternative would permanently disturb 2,259 acres of BLM-administered land and 477 acres of privately owned land. Alternative 3 consists of two options for alternate gen-tie line routes. The central route would be a total of 12.5 miles long, 5.5 miles of which would differ from the proposed action gen-tie line. It would be located farther west and would be collocated with the approved gen-tie line for the adjacent Blythe Solar Power Project (BSPP). A maintenance road and spur roads would be collocated with the central route gen-tie line. The Western Route would extend 15.5 miles along the western side of the adjacent BSPP and 8.5 miles would differ from the proposed action gen-tie line. No maintenance road would be collocated with the western route gen-tie line. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. The BLM preferred alternative combines the proposed action with the Alternative 3 central route and switchyard interconnection to the Colorado River Substation. The preferred alternative covers 4,014 acres managed by the BLM and a total of 4,491 acres, including private land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval would allow McCoy Solar to develop, own, and operate a renewable energy generation facility that is anticipated to supply enough electricity to power 225,000 homes. The project would employ an estimated 750 workers during peak construction and 20 workers during operations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would disturb over 4,500 acres of vegetation and habitat and would directly impact 1,089 acres identified as lands with wilderness characteristics. Seven special status plant species and 20 special status wildlife species could be affected. Construction-related emissions of particulate matter would exceed standards. Over 100 known cultural and historic sites would be impacted and damage or destruction of paleontological resources could occur. Motorists, residential communities, and recreationists would experience adverse visual 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: 120391, Final EIS--793 pages, Appendices--1,915 pages, December 21, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-21 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Historic Sites KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sonoran 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/16395561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-21&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MCCOY+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MCCOY+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 21, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 1325327317; 15588 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way (ROW) application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan (RMP) would change the management of approximately 6,800 acres from a Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III to a VRM Class IV designation. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. The project would utilize thermal energy storage that allows solar energy to be captured throughout the day and retained in a liquid salt heat transfer fluid. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. This abbreviated final EIS includes comments on the draft EIS and identifies the preferred alternatives which are to grant the interconnection request and approve both the ROW and the RMP amendment. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The solar facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and degrade the experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. The Fort Yuma-Quechan, Cocopah, Colorado River, and Fort Mojave Indian Tribes have indicated that it would be difficult or impossible to mitigate the cumulative effects of renewable energy projects on traditional landscape values in the deserts bordering the Colorado River. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120393, 79 pages, December 21, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/1325327317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-21&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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 21, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1325327359; 15579 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, U.S. Highway 95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The WTGs would have maximum height of 427.5 feet with three mounted rotor blades, each 165 feet in length. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations and a 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred 87 WTG Layout Alternative would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project would help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120384, Final EIS--564 pages, Appendices--833 pages, December 14, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1325327359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RING OF FIRE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, HAINES BLOCK PLANNING AREA, SOUTHEAST ALASKA. AN - 1325327324; 15575 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the Ring of Fire Resource Management Plan (RMP) to address recreation and land management issues within the Haines Planning Area in southeast Alaska is proposed. The study area encompasses 950,000 acres bound by the border with Canada to the north and west, Glacier Bay National Park to the southwest, and the Tongass National Forest to the south and east. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Anchorage Field Office administers 320,000 acres of public lands located in two main blocks or parcels: the north block is located northwest of Skagway along the United States-Canada border and the south block is located southwest of the City of Haines along the boundary of Glacier Bay National Park. The steep and remote mountainous terrain provides opportunities for outdoor recreation and nature-based tourism in the Haines Block special recreation management area (SRMA). As of 2011, two helicopter operators are authorized for up to 2,400 summer landings annually in the Haines Block SRMA (north block only), excluding the monitoring and control area where no landings are permitted. However, at least two additional helicopter operators have also requested landing authorizations on BLM-managed lands in the planning area. Requests for winter landing authorizations are currently on hold pending the outcome of this planning effort. Key issues include: disturbance to local communities due to helicopter noise; impacts of flight paths and associated noise to other visitors and local residents; and impacts of helicopter-supported activities on wildlife, particularly on eagles, mountain goats and mountain goat habitat. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative B, the current SRMA designation in the northern block (251,900 acres) would be expanded to encompass the south block (66,200 acres). The 98,000-acre monitoring and control area would be lifted and permitted helicopter landings would be allowed to occur within its former boundary. The total number of authorized helicopter landings on BLM-managed lands would be set to a maximum of 7,500 landings annually during the summer and winter. Under Alternative C, the SRMA designation for the north block would be changed to an extensive recreation management area (ERMA) and that designation would be extended to BLM-managed lands in the south block. The monitoring and control area would be retained for a period of five years to provide a control area for mountain goat studies. The total number of authorized helicopter landings on BLM-managed lands would be set to a maximum of 4,000 annually during the summer and winter. Alternative D is the preferred alternative and would include the same RMA and control monitoring area designations as described for Alternative C, but the total number of authorized helicopter landings on BLM-managed lands would be set to a maximum of 6,000 landings annually during the summer and winter. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed amendment would identify which, if any, designation and associated management practices best fulfill the resource needs and multiple-use demands within the planning area. Permitting 6,000 landings annually, which is approximately 150 percent more than the current authorized level, would enhance recreational access for the general public. The retention of the monitoring and control area for five years would allow for the completion of current studies on the effects of helicopter disturbance on wildlife before the area is opened to special recreation permit applicants. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Potential impacts of noise and overflights could become more frequent and year-round; more backcountry trekkers could increase human/wildlife encounters. The increased number of overflights and landings has a greater potential to impact mountain goats, particularly landings at periods of time and in places where goats are on winter ranges, when they are most vulnerable to disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120380, 204 pages, December 14, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-AK-A010-2012-0027-EIS KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Helicopters KW - Land Management KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1325327324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RING+OF+FIRE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HAINES+BLOCK+PLANNING+AREA%2C+SOUTHEAST+ALASKA.&rft.title=RING+OF+FIRE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+HAINES+BLOCK+PLANNING+AREA%2C+SOUTHEAST+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Anchorage, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 14, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST CHOCOLATE MOUNTAINS RENEWABLE ENERGY EVALUATION AREA, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1325327321; 15574 AB - PURPOSE: The identification of sites for testing and developing solar and wind energy facilities, and the allocation of federal mineral estate for geothermal energy testing and development in the West Chocolate Mountains Renewable Energy Evaluation Area (REEA) located near Niland in north central Imperial County, California are proposed. The 64,058-acre REEA is south of Riverside County, north of the City of Calipatria, east of the Salton Sea, west of the Chocolate Mountains, and is within the boundaries of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA). Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land within the West Chocolate REEA under consideration for renewable energy projects consists of 18,765 acres of surface lands and 20,027 acres of land with federal mineral estate. The BLM has received one application for geothermal leasing, covering approximately 640 acres, and currently has no solar or wind energy right-of-way applications for land within the West Chocolate REEA. This final EIS evaluates six alternatives and identifies stipulations and mitigation measures that could be applied to future energy projects subject to site specific resource issues. Under Alternative 1 (No Action), the West Chocolate REEA would remain under current management of the CDCA Plan, which makes the land provisionally available for geothermal leasing and for authorization of solar and wind projects. Any future applications for wind or solar projects would be processed on an individual basis, with any necessary plan amendments initiated at that time. Under Alternative 2 (No Development), the CDCA Plan would be amended to identify the West Chocolate REEA as unsuitable for geothermal leasing and development and for wind and solar energy development. Alternative 3 would allow development of geothermal, solar, and wind resources to the maximum reasonably foreseeable development scenario. Alternative 4 would allow geothermal development only, while Alternative 5 would emphasize solar energy development with moderate geothermal development and no wind development. Alternative 6, which is the preferred alternative, would emphasize geothermal development with moderate solar development and no wind development. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Identification of suitable areas would facilitate a more efficient response to the high interest in siting renewable energy projects on public lands, including geothermal plants, and utility-scale solar and wind projects. Stipulations and measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of such development would be more consistently applied. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, up to 1,026 acres of land could be disturbed from geothermal energy development and up to 29,758 acres could be disturbed from solar energy development. Projects within the REEA would remove vegetation and fragment and degrade habitat. Of particular concern would be loss of habitat used by sensitive species, such as the desert tortoise, burrowing owl, flat-tailed horned lizard, Nelsons bighorn sheep, and several bird species. Competitive processing of solar energy applications would be constrained by water usage and potential conflicts with military airspace operations in the vicinity of the Chocolate Mountains Aerial Gunnery Range. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120379, Final EIS--861 pages, Appendices--310 pages, Responses to Comments--159 pages, December 14, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2013-001+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado Desert KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1325327321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=WEST+CHOCOLATE+MOUNTAINS+RENEWABLE+ENERGY+EVALUATION+AREA%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 14, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-11 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - White-nose syndrome bat recovery may share AIDS similarities AN - 1221967906 AB - "We see strong similarities between human IRIS and the pathology associated with WNS , with potentially fatal outcome in bats," said USGS lead researcher Carol Meteyer. "We hope that these findings will stimulate more experimental studies that yield insight into the role of the immune response during IRIS in humans as well as hibernating bats." JF - Western Farm Press AU - USGS AD - USGS Y1 - 2012/12/05/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Dec 05 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1221967906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=White-nose+syndrome+bat+recovery+may+share+AIDS+similarities&rft.au=USGS&rft.aulast=USGS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-12-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Media, Inc. Dec 5, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONTINENTAL DIVIDE-CRESTON NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CARBON AND SWEETWATER COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 1323793789; 15568 AB - PURPOSE: The expanded development of natural gas and condensate resources within an existing gas-producing region between Rock Springs and Rawlins in Carbon and Sweetwater counties, Wyoming is proposed. BP America Production Company (BP), representing itself and more than 20 other natural gas development companies (the Operators), has submitted a proposal to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field Office for expansion within two previously developed project areas described as the Continental Divide/Wamsutter II and Creston/Blue Gap project areas. The BLM has designated the new consolidated proposal the Continental Divide-Creston (CD-C) Natural Gas Development Project. The project area is located on lands administered by the federal government (626,932 acres) and the State of Wyoming (48,684 acres), as well as private lands (394,470 acres). The CD-C project would involve drilling up to 8,950 infill natural gas wells in addition to the more than 4,400 wells already drilled in the project area. Drilling at well densities of up to one well per 40 acres is anticipated. Wells may be drilled conventionally with a vertical well bore on a single pad or with multiple directional bores from a single pad. New ancillary facilities would include: roads; gas, water, and condensate-gathering pipelines; overhead and buried power lines; and separation, dehydration, metering, and fluid-storage facilities. Supporting infrastructure associated with the existing development includes access roads, compressor stations, a central gas-processing plant, water management facilities (fresh-water wells and evaporation pits, recycling facilities, and injection wells for produced water disposal), gas and water pipelines, and electric power lines. The Operators have committed to interim reclamation of well locations and access roads, as well as final reclamation and recontouring of all disturbed areas. In addition to the proposed action, five alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A examines the possibility that all 8,950 wells would be drilled vertically from single-well pads. Alternative B would add enhanced protections on BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate for: mule deer and pronghorn crucial winter range; greater sage-grouse lek, nesting/brood-rearing habitat, and winter concentration areas; ferruginous hawk nesting habitat; the Muddy Creek and Bitter Creek corridors and watersheds; Chain Lakes alkaline wetland communities and other playas; and livestock forage areas. Under Alternative C, the portions of the CD-C project area that have seen the most intensive natural gas development to date would be designated as high-density development areas. The amount of unreclaimed surface disturbance allowed per section of public land in these areas would be capped at 60 acres at any one time. The remainder of the project area would be designated as low-density development areas, with an unreclaimed surface disturbance cap of 30 acres per section at any one time. Alternative D would require all future natural gas wells on BLM-administered lands and federal mineral estate to be drilled from multi-well pads. Under all action alternatives, recoverable natural gas reserves produced over the life of the project are estimated at 12.02 trillion cubic feet; liquid condensate is estimated at 167.3 million barrels. Construction would require approximately 15 years and the productive life of the project would extend an estimated 30 to 40 years beyond that. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project approval would allow the Operators to develop, produce, and market natural gas and other fluid minerals from the CD-C project area that are needed to meet the national domestic energy demand. Tax revenues and royalties of more than $9 billion, and creation of more than 2,500 jobs at peak periods of development are anticipated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 47,200 to 61,696 acres would add to existing surface disturbance (60,176 acres or 5.6 percent of the project area) with consequential impacts on soils, vegetation, wildlife habitat, range lands, and recreation resources. Well field development activities could result in elevated one-hour nitrogen dioxide concentrations and 24-hour particulate matter concentrations that are above standards at areas immediately adjacent to these activities. The project has the potential to further fragment wildlife habitat and seriously diminish the value of that habitat for many species. Contamination of surface water from the authorized and accidental discharge of fluids and produced water could impact sensitive fish species found primarily in the Muddy Creek drainage. Paleontological resources have been identified in over 30 localities within the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). JF - EPA number: 120373, Draft EIS--649 pages, Appendices--323 pages, Air Quality Technical Support Document--837 pages, November 30, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/002+1310 KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Birds KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Storage KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1323793789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONTINENTAL+DIVIDE-CRESTON+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+AND+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CONTINENTAL+DIVIDE-CRESTON+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+AND+SWEETWATER+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DEWEY-BURDOCK IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY (ISR) PROJECT, CUSTER AND FALL RIVER COUNTIES, SOUTH DAKOTA (FOURTH DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 1323793781; 15565 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 draft supplemental 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2001 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (10 CFR, Part 54). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on promulgation of rules for new source material licenses, see 08-0275D, Volume 32, Number 3 and 09-0237F, Volume 33, Number3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120370, Volume 1--505 pages, Volume 2--353 pages, November 23, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: NUREG-1910 Supp. 4 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/1323793781?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-23&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+%28FOURTH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=DEWEY-BURDOCK+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+%28ISR%29+PROJECT%2C+CUSTER+AND+FALL+RIVER+COUNTIES%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA+%28FOURTH+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+GENERIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&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 - 2013-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 23, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GAS HILLS IN SITU RECOVERY URANIUM PROJECT, FREMONT AND NATRONA COUNTIES, WYOMING. AN - 1320153979; 15560 AB - PURPOSE: The development of uranium deposits using in-situ recovery (ISR) techniques in the Gas Hills Mining District, Fremont and Natrona counties, Wyoming is proposed. Power Resources, Inc. (PRI), doing business as Cameco Resources, has filed a plan of operations to construct uranium ISR facilities including: waste water disposal facilities; access roads; pipelines and utility lines; delineation, injection and production wells; and improvement of one existing and construction of one new equipment-housing satellite facility used in the ISR process. The project would be located 45 road miles east of Riverton, Wyoming, and 65 road miles west of Casper, Wyoming. Approximately 15 percent of the 8,500 acre project area has been disturbed by past mining and exploration activities. The plan of operations identifies five production areas, or mine units, with subsurface ore bodies within the Wind River Formation for ISR extraction. Construction, operation, groundwater restoration, and surface reclamation of five mine units would occur during an estimated period of 25 years. At the end of the project, all surface structures would be removed, and all disturbances would be re-contoured and reclaimed. Any radiological contaminated wastes, including any processing pipe and equipment as well as solid residue or liners from evaporation ponds, would be removed from the project area and disposed of in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and a Resource Protection Alternative which would reduce surface disturbance and heavy truck transportation. Modifications would include on-site resin processing to produce slurry, submittal of an annual development plan, construction timing constraints, a disturbance offset for an additional satellite facility, reduced number of evaporation ponds, enhanced reclamation, and power line burial. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120364, 491 pages, November 16, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-13/003+1020 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/1320153979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GAS+HILLS+IN+SITU+RECOVERY+URANIUM+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+NATRONA+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=GAS+HILLS+IN+SITU+RECOVERY+URANIUM+PROJECT%2C+FREMONT+AND+NATRONA+COUNTIES%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Lander, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NARROWS PROJECT, SANPETE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 1320153968; 15558 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of the Narrows Project, a non-federal supplemental water supply project, in northern Sanpete County, Utah is proposed. The Sanpete Water Conservancy District (SWCD) has applied to the Bureau of Reclamation for a loan to help finance construction of a private reservoir and related facilities. SWCD also has requested authorization to use 304.5 acres of federally-administered withdrawn lands as the site for dam construction. Most of the reservoir basin would be located on adjacent, private land. The municipal water demand in Sanpete County exceeds the available supply and water for agricultural irrigation is not adequate at the time when it is needed in late summer. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, a dam and reservoir would be constructed on Gooseberry Creek, and up to 5,400 acre-feet of water would be diverted through the existing Narrows Tunnel to Cottonwood Creek. Three pipelines would be constructed to deliver water to the existing distribution systems located near Fairview, Utah. Recreation facilities would be developed at the reservoir for boating, camping, and picnicking. The reservoir would have a total capacity of 17,000 acre-feet, a water surface area of 604 acres, and a minimum pool of 2,500 acre-feet that would not be drawn down. The Mid-Sized Reservoir Alternative would have a capacity of 12,450 acre-feet and a reservoir surface area of 489 acres. It would produce an average annual yield of 4,964 acre-feet per year. The Small Reservoir Alternative would have a capacity of 7,900 acre-feet and a reservoir surface area of 362 acres. It would produce an average annual yield of 4,710 acre-feet per year. The three build alternatives include mitigation measures to offset adverse impacts and water conservation measures would be implemented independent of the proposed action. The proposed action is the preferred alternative and would cost $36.2 million, of which $5.3 million would be allocated to fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Narrows Project would provide an average annual yield of 5,136 acre-feet for supplemental irrigation of 15,420 acres of currently irrigated farmland and 855 acre-feet of water for municipal and industrial use. Supplemental irrigation is expected to yield a third crop of alfalfa in an area where usually only two crops are harvested. The project would have the added benefit of providing improved and additional recreation and fishing opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would permanently alter 786 acres of rangeland and wildlife habitat. The reservoir would inundate 100 acres of wetlands, one mile of stream fishery in upper Gooseberry Creek, and 4.3 miles of Yellowstone cutthroat trout spawning and rearing habitat in tributaries to Gooseberry Creek. Project features would reduce available grazing area by 856 acres. Traffic volume is expected to increase by 19 percent under the proposed action. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat, 1107), and Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and draft supplemental EISs, see 98-0139D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 10-0203D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120361, Final EIS--304 pages, Appendices--614 pages, Comments and Responses--1,508 pages, November 16, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 12-23 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Fish KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Ranges KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gooseberry Creek KW - Utah KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Compliance KW - Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1320153968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=NARROWS+PROJECT%2C+SANPETE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Provo, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 16, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. AN - 1320153967; 15557 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources is proposed. The study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective area of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie basins. This final programmatic EIS reconsiders the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) programmatic EIS which made two million acres of public land available for potential development of oil shale and 430,686 acres of public land available for potential development of tar sands. Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is considering amending the applicable Resource Management Plans to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be available for such application. Four alternatives for allocation of oil shale, including two with subalternatives, and four alternatives for allocation of tar sands are analyzed. For both resource uses, Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) would perpetuate the 2008 land use decisions. For commercial oil shale leasing, Alternative 2(a) would make 676,967 acres available for future consideration. Lands with wilderness characteristics, the Adobe Town wilderness study area, core or priority sage-grouse habitat, and all areas of environmental concern would be excluded from leasing. Alternative 2(b) is the preferred alternative and would make the same 676,967 acres available, but only for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, would be specified in the RD&D lease. Alternative 3 would limit public lands available for commercial leasing to the those lands encompassed by existing oil shale RD&D leases and their associated preference right lease acreage, plus the areas encompassed by the three RD&D lease applications currently under review. Under this alternative, 34,888 acres would be open for potential future leasing of oil shale. Alternative 4(a) would designate between 1.4 million and two million acres as available for application for commercial oil shale leasing. Alternative 4(b) would make the same acres available, but only for RD&D leases. For the tar sands resources, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative and would make 129,567 acres in eastern Utah available for application for commercial leasing, but only for RD&D leases. Under Alternative 3, the lands identified as available for application for commercial leasing would be limited to those lands in the Vernal, Utah planning area for which there is a pending tar sands lease application (2,100 acres). Alternative 4 would designate between 283,331 and 435,369 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternatives would focus on RD&D projects before committing to broad-scale commercial development and would provide for a clearer understanding of the implications of development of oil shale for water quality and quantity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future development of commercial oil shale and tar sands projects would displace existing land uses. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation. Mining would destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Potential project-related impacts may include reduced surface water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, modification of surface and groundwater flow, and contamination of surface water or groundwater due to accidental releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. Mining and related road, transmission line, and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), 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 abstracts of the original OSTS draft and final programmatic EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120360, Volume 1--550 pages, Volume 2--422 pages, Volume 3--588 pages, Volume 4--456 pages, Volume 5--1,922 pages, November 9, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 12-41 KW - Exploration KW - Geology KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Research KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance 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/1320153967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 9, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES: 2013 - 2014; WESTERN PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 233 AND CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 231, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JULY 2012). AN - 1320153965; 15555 AB - PURPOSE: Two oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Western Planning Area (WPA) Lease Sale 233 and Central Planning Area (CPA) Lease Sale 231 were scheduled as part of the five-year Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017 which was analyzed in the final WPA/CPA Multisale EIS of July 2012. The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses about 28.58 million acres. As of October 2012, approximately 20.8 million acres of the proposed WPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of WPA Lease Sale 233 is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet of gas. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA for oil and gas operations except for whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Alternative B would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. The proposed CPA lease sale area encompasses about 63 million acres of the CPAs 66.45 million acres. As of October 2012, approximately 42.9 million acres of the proposed CPA lease sale area are currently unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of CPA Lease Sale 231 is 0.460-0.894 billion barrels of oil and 1.939-3.903 trillion cubic feet of gas. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative C), are evaluated. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all blocks within the proposed CPA lease sale area, with the following exceptions: whole and portions of blocks deferred by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006; and blocks that are beyond the United States Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap. Alternative A of the 2012-2017 WPA/CPA Multisale EIS also included an exclusion of 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. The U.S. and Mexico have been pursuing an Agreement to govern the development of reservoirs of petroleum and natural gas straddling the U.S.-Mexico maritime and continental shelf boundary in the Gulf of Mexico. On February 20, 2012, the Agreement was signed, but it has not yet been enacted. Upon its enactment, the blocks and acreage in this buffer zone that were not offered in past lease sales will become available and will no longer need to be excluded. 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Coastal environmental degradation caused by navigation canal maintenance, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills could impact fish resources and essential fish habitat. The incremental contribution of the WPA or CPA proposed action to the cumulative impacts of coastal barriers and their associated dunes is expected to be small and localized. 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 soft-bottom benthic habitats would occur. Adverse impacts to 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 recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120358, 406 pages, November 9, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-105 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/1320153965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2013+-+2014%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+233+AND+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+231%2C+TEXAS%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+2013+-+2014%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+233+AND+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+231%2C+TEXAS%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 - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 9, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUN VALLEY TO MORGAN 500/230KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT AND DRAFT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 1320153963; 15553 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 draft 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. The Bradshaw-Harquahala Resource Management Plan (RMP) would be amended to establish the needed 200-foot wide ROW as a single-use utility corridor. 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. Alternative 2 would also amend the RMP to establish a multi-use utility corridor on the entire block of public lands immediately south of SR 74. 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. Alternative 3 would not involve amending the RMP. The sub-alternative route would replace a four-mile section of the proposed route that would also be common to all action alternatives and could be combined with any of them. The sub-alternative 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's preferred alternative is to designate the single-use corridor for the proposed route. In addition, the BLM would designate a multi-use utility corridor on 1,013 acres of public lands south of SR 74 and change the existing visual resource management (VRM) 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: The removal of desert scrub would permanently remove 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: 120356, 787 pages, November 9, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM 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 - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1320153963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUN+VALLEY+TO+MORGAN+500%2F230KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+MARICOPA+COUNTY%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=SUN+VALLEY+TO+MORGAN+500%2F230KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT+AND+DRAFT+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 - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 9, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1320153977; 15541 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions made in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, which identified the Brenda and Gillespie SEZs in Arizona. The proposed amendment would identify an additional SEZ, called Agua Caliente, in southwestern Arizona. This final EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 266,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 185,700 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 21,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 192,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 2,550 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120344, Final EIS--703 pages, Appendices--495 pages, November 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-13/001 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1320153977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DESERT HARVEST SOLAR PROJECT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1320153974; 15547 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a 150-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic (PV) solar energy facility and an associated generation-intertie transmission line (gen-tie line) on desert land in Riverside County, California is proposed. Construction of the Desert Harvest Solar Project (DHSP) would require issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to enXco Development Corporation, a wholly owned affiliate of EDF Energies Nouvelles, for facilities that would be sited on 1,208 acres of lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) north of the community of Desert Center. In addition, the project would require an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan to find the site suitable for solar electricity generation and to allow a high-voltage transmission line outside of a federally-designated utility corridor. The Joshua Tree National Park is north, east, and west of the proposed project; at its closest point the DHSP site is about 1.8 miles southwest of the national park. The proposed solar facility would consist of a main generation area including PV arrays, a switchyard, inverters, overhead lines, access corridors, an operations and maintenance facility, an on-site substation and switchgear. Site security, fencing, and lighting would protect the facility. The proposed 220-kilovolt gen-tie line would transmit the electricity generated to the regional transmission system through the Red Bluff Substation, where the power from the proposed solar facility would be stepped up and fed into Southern California Edisons existing Devers Palo Verde No. 1 high-voltage transmission line. This final EIS analyzes seven solar facility alternatives, including a No Action and two No Project alternatives. Five gen-tie line alternatives are also evaluated. Four action alternatives for the solar project include: 1) the proposed project configuration; 2) a solar project excluding the Palen-Ford Wildlife Habitat Management Area (WHMA); 3) a reduced footprint solar project; and 4) a high-profile reduced footprint solar project. Four action alternatives for the gen-tie line include: 1) the proposed gen-tie line configuration which would share transmission towers with the approved Desert Sunlight Solar Farm (DSSF); 2) a separate transmission towers configuration parallel to the DSSF towers and within the same ROW; 3) a cross-valley alignment with 3.9 miles located on BLM land outside a designated utility corridor; and 4) a new cross-valley alignment with 5.4 miles located on BLM land outside a designated utility corridor. For the complete project, the high-profile reduced footprint solar project (Alternative 7) and the proposed gen-tie line with shared towers (Alternative B) are preferred. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The ROW grant would allow the applicant to develop a solar PV energy project through commercially available financing and to provide low-cost renewable energy by locating the project on contiguous lands with high solar insolation values. Under the preferred alternative, the facility would be able to generate 125 to 135 MW of renewable energy on fewer acres than the proposed solar facility, thus reducing impacts from ground disturbance. This alternative would also incorporate the use of shared facilities in an already designated transmission line ROW, minimizing cumulative impacts. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The DHSP would result in substantial adverse effects to air resources from emissions of particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen. Construction of the solar farm would displace 624 acres of creosote bush scrub, 420 acres of desert dry wash woodland, 98 acres of Blue Palo Verde-Ironwood woodland, and 1,044 acres of desert tortoise habitat. The gen-tie line would traverse the Chuckwalla Desert Wildlife Management Area. The project would degrade the value of the Palen-Ford WHMA, wilderness areas, and areas of critical environmental concern. The cumulative effects of land conversion along the Interstate 10 corridor would be substantial. Historic and archaeological resources, including the North Chuckwalla Petroglyph District, would likely be affected. Traffic-related noise levels along Kaiser Road would increase and the visual character of the landscape, including the dark sky resource at Joshua Tree National Park, would be degraded. 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: 120350, Draft EIS--1,099 pages, Appendices--1,681 pages, November 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-CA-D000-2012-0004-EIS KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Noise Assessments KW - Solar Energy KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Colorado 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/1320153974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DESERT+HARVEST+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=DESERT+HARVEST+SOLAR+PROJECT%2C+RIVERSIDE+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 64 PENINSULA STUDY FROM INTERSTATE 95 IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO INTERSTATE 664 IN THE CITY OF HAMPTON, VIRGINIA. AN - 1320153973; 15546 AB - PURPOSE: Options to improve the 75-mile-long Interstate 64 (I-64) corridor from the I-95 (Exit 190) interchange in Richmond, Virginia to the I-664 (Exit 264) interchange in Hampton, Virginia are proposed. The Interstate 64 Peninsula Study (I-64 Study) addresses existing traffic congestion and aging roadway and design/structure deficiencies which have exacerbated safety concerns within the corridor. The study area is defined as directly north and south of the existing I-64 corridor through the counties of Henrico, New Kent, James City and York, and the cities of Richmond, Newport News and Hampton. Approximately two-thirds of the I-64 mainline operates at a deficient level of service during base conditions, particularly the segment closest to I-95 at the western end of the corridor and virtually the entire stretch of I-64 from Exit 214 (Providence Forge) in New Kent County to Exit 264 (I-664) in Hampton. The number of lanes on existing I-64 varies through the study area. In the vicinity of Richmond, from Exit 190 to Exit 197, there are generally three travel lanes in each direction. Between Exit 197 and mile marker 254, there are generally two travel lanes in each direction. Beginning at mile marker 254 and continuing east to the Hampton area, I-64 widens to four lanes in each direction with three general purpose lanes and one high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane during peak periods. There are some additional lanes between closely spaced interchanges at the eastern end of the corridor to provide for easier merging of traffic on and off of the I-64 mainline. The alternatives analyzed in this draft EIS include a No Build Alternative and five highway build alternatives. Under Alternative 1A, additional general purpose lanes would be added to the outside of the existing general purpose lanes. For Alternative 1B, the new lanes would be constructed in the median to the greatest extent practicable. In sections of the corridor with insufficient median area, the additional lanes would be constructed outside of the existing general purpose lanes, with an effort to keep the proposed improvements within the existing right-of-way (ROW). Alternatives 2A and 2B would involve adding additional tolled lanes to the outside and in the median, respectively. Alternative 3 would involve the addition of separated, managed lanes located in the median. The lanes could be managed using different strategies, and might be HOV lanes, high occupancy toll lanes, express toll lanes, or express bus lanes. If Alternative 3 is identified as the preferred alternative, subsequent studies would define the specific type of managed lanes, lane needs and locations, access to and from the managed lanes, and end points and transition zones for the managed lanes along with the needed general purpose lanes. In areas where the corridor does not have sufficient median width to accommodate the addition of any lanes, the facility would be widened to the outside of the existing general purpose lanes in order to accommodate the managed lanes in the median. All the build alternatives would include improvements to the 25 existing interchanges within the study area corridor. The planning level estimated cost for the I-64 Study improvements ranges from $4.7 billion to $7.3 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: In addition to addressing deficiencies and safety concerns, the proposed action would reduce travel delays, improve access to tourist attractions, improve connectivity between military installations, provide for increased demand from the freight industry, provide for the efficient transporting of freight in and out of the Port of Virginia, and support the current economic development needs along the corridor and in the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would displace 65 acres of farmland and impact 65 to 67 acres of wetlands, 112,157 to 113,624 linear feet of stream channel, 18 to 21 acres of floodplains, and four reservoirs. Nine surface waters intersecting the study area corridor have been listed as impaired waters. Expanded ROW would impact community facilities, three public parks, two historic sites, six to seven archeological sites, and five battlefields. Up to 789 partial and full acquisitions would be required. Traffic noise impacts would affect 1,156 to 1,262 residences. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 120349, Draft EIS--155 pages, Technical Memoranda--3,797 pages, November 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA-EIS-12-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parks KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1320153973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-11-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+64+PENINSULA+STUDY+FROM+INTERSTATE+95+IN+THE+CITY+OF+RICHMOND+TO+INTERSTATE+664+IN+THE+CITY+OF+HAMPTON%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+64+PENINSULA+STUDY+FROM+INTERSTATE+95+IN+THE+CITY+OF+RICHMOND+TO+INTERSTATE+664+IN+THE+CITY+OF+HAMPTON%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-28 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1317822798; 15536 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet. The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. This final EIS considers the proposed action with additional options for crossing the Yukon River, a No Action Alternative, and one pipeline route variation which would extend seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Federal legislation that would allow the route variation has been introduced by the Alaska delegation, and is currently being considered by the U.S. Congress. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves to Fairbanks, Anchorage, and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. Utilization of the North Slope gas would generate royalties and taxes to the benefit of the State of Alaska. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages, and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider, while habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. South of the Yukon River, the proposed project would cross two seismic zones. Cumulative impacts may significantly affect subsistence uses and needs. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120339, Final EIS--1,441 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 26, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1317822798?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-26&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 26, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST EUGENE WETLANDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, LANE COUNTY, OREGON. AN - 1316369272; 15528 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of the West Eugene Wetlands planning area near Eugene, Oregon are proposed. The planning area includes 1,340 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and 96 acres of lands on which BLM has an ownership interest (conservation easement). The West Eugene Wetlands Resource Management Plan (RMP) would be consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Plan for the Prairie Species of Western Oregon and Southwestern Washington, which describes the importance of the planning area to the recovery of Fenders blue butterfly, Willamette daisy, Bradshaws lomatium, Kincaid's lupine, and golden paintbrush. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which vary primarily in the amount and location of lands that would be allocated to the restoration of threatened and endangered species habitat. Under the action alternatives, most or all of the planning area would be allocated to two land use allocations: prairie restoration area, which would have a management objective to restore and maintain habitat for prairie-related species; and natural maintenance area, which would have a management objective to maintain existing resources and provide opportunities for a variety of goods and services. Alternative 1 would allocate a total 1,137 acres to the prairie restoration area. Alternatives 2A and 2B would allocate 414 acres to prairie restoration. Alternative 2B would emphasize providing commodities and services to the extent compatible with threatened and endangered species management, and would make approximately two-thirds of the planning area open to saleable mineral development. Alternatives 3A, 3B, and 3C would allocate 279 acres to the prairie restoration area. Alternative 3C would enhance recreation opportunities to the extent compatible with threatened and endangered species management including development of a disc golf course at the Stewart Pond site. Alternatives 1, 2A, 2B, and 3A would include herbicides among the management tools. However, Alternatives 2A, 2B, and 3A would exclude the Stewart Pond and Eastern Gateway sites from herbicide use. In all alternatives that would include herbicide use, the herbicides available for use would be limited to glyphosate, triclopyr, and clopyralid. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would provide comprehensive, long-range direction for the planning area and contribute to the recovery of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, while providing other benefits, particularly maintaining the ecological function of wetlands; habitat for other plant and animal communities; and recreation and environmental education opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed burning would emit smoke and particulates. Herbicide application would result in some mortality of non-target plants, but mortality would be highly localized because of the application methods. Habitat for animal species associated with oak woodlands, such as Lewis' woodpecker, would decline under all the action alternatives. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120331, 296 pages, October 19, 2012 PY - 2012 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/1316369272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-19&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 the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Eugene, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STEHEKIN RIVER CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, LAKE CHELAN NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE COMPLEX, WASHINGTON. AN - 1314697817; 15522 AB - PURPOSE: Management actions to respond to the increased magnitude and frequency of flooding in the Stehekin River corridor within Lake Chelan National Recreation Area (NRA), North Cascades National Park Service Complex, Washington are proposed. The project area includes the lower Stehekin Valley, from High Bridge to the head of Lake Chelan, including Weaver Point. Land ownership includes a patchwork of public land and 460 acres of private lands. Recent major floods and resultant channel changes on the lower Stehekin River have intensified flood and erosion threats to National Park Service (NPS) facilities and are impacting natural resources within Lake Chelan NRA. Three of the largest floods on record have occurred since 1995 and the NPS has spent more than $3 million to protect public roads and facilities and to repair damage. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Actions called for by the 1995 Lake Chelan NRA General Management Plan that would be implemented under all alternatives include: replacement and relocation/construction of the NPS maintenance compound; replacement and relocation/construction of administrative housing in the same area; creation of a Lower Valley Trail that connects Stehekin Landing to High Bridge; and the ongoing use of land acquisition and exchange to remove development from the Stehekin River floodplain. The Company Creek Road would be maintained in its existing alignment and existing erosion protection measures along the Stehekin Valley and Company Creek roads would be maintained, including the 400-foot-long levee constructed in the 1980s. Actions under Alternative 2 would include: rerouting the Stehekin Valley Road out of the channel migration zone around McGregor Meadows and the Lower Field; identification of new land protection priorities through a revised Land Protection Plan (LPP); and implementation of erosion protection measures at three sites. Alternative 3 would reroute the Stehekin Valley Road out of the channel migration zone only around McGregor Meadows and would implement erosion protection measures at five sites. Alternative 4 would maintain the alignment of the Stehekin Valley Road, including raising it through McGregor Meadows. New land protection priorities would be less than under Alternative 2 and erosion protection measures would be implemented at seven sites. The preferred plan (Alternative 5) modifies Alternative 2 to provide a 1,000-foot-long access road from the reroute of Stehekin Valley Road to McGregor Meadows. Alternative 5 would identify LPP priorities based on revised criteria that focus primarily on flood and erosion threats. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would help the NPS to operate and maintain administrative facilities, public access roads, trails, and campgrounds; protect water quality, scenic values, habitat, and natural processes of the Stehekin River; and continue visitor services, including those services and facilities found on private lands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The installation of new erosion protection structures would add to cumulative effects on the Stehekin River. Management of large wood debris and proliferation of bank protection measures have the potential to increase the spread of nonnative plants. Construction of the new road and new NPS facilities would create short- and long-term disturbances to land use, vegetation and soils, water quality, and wildlife. The reroute could disturb a nesting site for northern spotted owls. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0419D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120325, Final EIS--628 pages, Appendices--454 pages, Land Protection Plan--90 pages, October 12, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Bank Protection KW - Dikes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Hazards KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Lake Chelan National Recreation Area KW - North Cascades National Park KW - Stehekin River KW - Washington KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314697817?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STEHEKIN+RIVER+CORRIDOR+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+LAKE+CHELAN+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=STEHEKIN+RIVER+CORRIDOR+IMPLEMENTATION+PLAN%2C+LAKE+CHELAN+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+NORTH+CASCADES+NATIONAL+PARK+SERVICE+COMPLEX%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woolley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 12, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SILVER STATE SOLAR SOUTH PROJECT AND PROPOSED LAS VEGAS FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF SEPTEMBER 2010). AN - 1314697815; 15520 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 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 2010 final EIS and the Record of Decision (ROD) authorized only Phase I of project development, which became the 50 MW Silver State Solar North Project. 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. 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. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft 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. 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). 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, and D would disturb 3,855 acres, 2,515 acres, and 3,091 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: 120323, 536 pages, October 12, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy 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/1314697815?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-12&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+%28DRAFT+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+%28DRAFT+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 - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 12, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1314697813; 15518 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would include the open pit with associated pit dewatering, two waste rock disposal facilities, milling facilities, a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant, a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy, two tailings storage facilities (TSFs), an ongoing exploration program, a low-grade ore stockpile, a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area, and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include roads, warehouse and maintenance facilities, storm water diversions, sediment control basins, pipeline corridors, water storage and a process water storage pond, monitoring wells, administrative buildings, borrow areas, hazardous waste management facilities, a landfill, an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils, and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. Mining the 966 million tons of molybdenite ore (molybdenum disulfide) would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum, 1.7 billion tons of waste rock, and 1.0 billion tons of tailings. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action; however, at the end of the mining in the open pit, it would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum processing facilities would not be constructed and the molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The mine plan of operations would provide for the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and the reclamation of the project area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Total surface disturbance of 8,318 acres, including 8,056 acres of public land, would remove wildlife habitat and could impact greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Groundwater drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments would be lost. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120321, Volume 1--364 pages, Volume 2--445 pages, Appendices--639 pages, October 12, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EIS07-019 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Storage KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/1314697813?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+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 - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 12, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HERRING RIVER RESTORATION PROJECT, IN AND ADJACENT TO CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE, MASSACHUSETTS. AN - 1314697811; 15516 AB - PURPOSE: Tidal restoration of the Herring River floodplain in and adjacent to Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts is proposed. The Herring River floodplain has been impacted by more than 150 years of human manipulation, the most substantial being the construction of the Chequessett Neck Road Dike at the mouth of the river in 1909. Tidal restriction and salt marsh drainage have resulted in plant community changes, loss of estuarine habitat and degradation of water quality, alteration of natural sediment processes and increased salt marsh surface subsidence, nuisance mosquito production, and impediments to river herring migration. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The three restoration alternatives are distinguished primarily by the configuration of a new dike and tidal control structure at Chequessett Neck Road and the resulting degree of tidal exchange. A 165-foot-wide series of culverts with adjustable tide gates would be installed in the Chequessett Neck Road Dike to allow passage of Wellfleet Harbor tides. Under Alternative B, the tide gates would be opened gradually according to guidelines set forth in the adaptive management plan with an objective to ultimately reach a mean high spring tide of 4.8 feet and 100-year storm driven tide of 6.0 feet in the Lower Herring River. This alternative would provide a uniform degree of restoration in all sub-basins and would not require the construction of a dike at Mill Creek. Anticipated impacts to the Chequessett Yacht and Country Club (CYCC) golf course would be addressed either by relocating the affected portions of the facility to upland locations owned by the CYCC (Option 1), or by elevating the affected portions of the facility (Option 2). Under Alternative C, tide gates at a rebuilt Chequessett Neck Road Dike would be opened gradually with an objective to fully open the gates to allow mean high water spring tides up to 5.6 feet and 100-year storm driven tides up to 7.5 feet in the Lower Herring River. A tidal exclusion dike would be constructed at the mouth of Mill Creek in order to avoid flood impacts to low-lying private properties within this sub-basin. A one-way, flapper-style tide gate would be installed to allow freshwater to drain from the basin toward the Herring River while blocking seawater from passing upstream of the dike. The objective for Alternative D is to fully open the gates to allow mean high water spring tides up to 5.6 feet and 100-year storm driven tides up to 7.5 feet in the Lower Herring River. Alternative D would include a new dike at the mouth of Mill Creek, but the one-way flapper style tide gate would be replaced with an adjustable, two-way tide gate which would be managed to partially restore tidal flow to the sub-basin. Mean high spring tides would be limited to 4.7 feet and 100-year storm driven events to a maximum of 5.9 feet in Mill Creek. Alternative D, with Mill Creek Option 2 is the preferred alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore self-sustaining coastal habitats on a large portion of the 1,100-acre estuary in Wellfleet and Truro. Tidal restoration objectives would be balanced with flood control by allowing the highest tide range practicable while also ensuring flood proofing and protection of vulnerable properties. Other benefits could include reduced nuisance mosquitoes, improved recreational and commercial shellfishing, improving finfishing, enhanced scenic viewscapes, improved recreational access and quality, and improved regional employment. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Restoration could adversely impact several state-listed species and their habitats in the estuary, including American bittern, least bittern, northern harrier, eastern box turtle, water-willow stem borer, and diamondback terrapin. Construction of the tidal exclusion dike at the mouth of Mill Creek would require 2,900 cubic yards of fill and would permanently impact 12,500 square feet of wetland. In addition, a construction work area encompassing 2.4 acres of vegetated wetlands would likely be required for dewatering. Option 2 would require 150,000 cubic yards of fill and would disturb 32 acres. Disturbance and inundation could impact archeological sites and historic structures. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120319, Draft EIS--400 pages, Appendices--196 pages, October 12, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Dikes KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Insects KW - National Parks KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Cape Cod National Seashore KW - Herring River KW - Massachusetts KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314697811?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HERRING+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+IN+AND+ADJACENT+TO+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.title=HERRING+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+IN+AND+ADJACENT+TO+CAPE+COD+NATIONAL+SEASHORE%2C+MASSACHUSETTS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Wellfleet, Massachusetts; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 12, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-06 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CATTLE POINT ROAD REALIGNMENT PROJECT, SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK AND CATTLE POINT NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION AREA, SAN JUAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1314486933; 15510 AB - PURPOSE: The realignment of a portion of the Cattle Point Road located in the San Juan Island National Historical Park and Cattle Point Natural Resources Conservation Area about eight miles south of Friday Harbor, San Juan County, Washington is proposed. Coastal wind and wave action is eroding the base of the bluff that supports the road and is threatening approximately 500 feet of the roadway which is classified as a rural major collector. At the current erosion rate, it is estimated that the bluff scarp would reach a point two feet horizontal-distance from the outside face of the guardrail post in about 14 years and eventually cause roadway damage and closure. Cattle Point Road provides the only road access to the Cattle Point area, which includes lands within the park as well as state and privately-owned land on the southeast tip of the island. The road allows pedestrians, bicyclists, and visitors traveling by vehicle to enjoy the features of the area and provides the only road access for approximately 270 residents. The portion of road in the project area is owned and maintained by San Juan County. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B, Hybrid Mid-Slope Realignment, is the preferred alternative and would involve realigning approximately 4,950 feet of the Cattle Point Road to the north about 300 feet from its present location. Alternative C would involve a short realignment to the north of the existing road almost entirely within a bored tunnel to reduce the visual impacts of the realignment. Under Alternative D, a mid-slope realignment to the north of the existing road would utilize a short tunnel to lower the road profile through the top of the ridgeline. Construction costs for realignment alternatives B, C, and D are estimated at $5 to $8 million, $55 to $65 million, and $30 to $40 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Realignment of the road away from the eroding bluff would maintain safe vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian road access to the Cattle Point area through the San Juan Island National Historical Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The road realignment would pass through a section of previously undisturbed grassland prairie and construction of the preferred alternative would result in 17 acres of temporary soil disturbance, 13 acres of which would be restored and revegetated. Four acres would be covered by new impermeable road surface, but three acres would be recovered from the abandoned road section. Wildlife and bird species would be displaced by ground disturbing activities. The Mt. Finlayson Trail would be directly impacted and long term visual impacts of the new road alignment when viewed from the Cattle Point peninsula, offshore, and from neighboring islands would be moderate. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0417D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120313, 384 pages, October 5, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FHWA WA PLD SAJH 10(1) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Erosion KW - Islands KW - National Parks KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - San Juan Island National Historical Park KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Parks UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314486933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CATTLE+POINT+ROAD+REALIGNMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK+AND+CATTLE+POINT+NATURAL+RESOURCES+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=CATTLE+POINT+ROAD+REALIGNMENT+PROJECT%2C+SAN+JUAN+ISLAND+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK+AND+CATTLE+POINT+NATURAL+RESOURCES+CONSERVATION+AREA%2C+SAN+JUAN+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Vancouver, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 90 SNOQUALMIE PASS EAST, KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF AUGUST 2008). AN - 1314486927; 15508 AB - PURPOSE: A design modification to the Interstate 90 (I-90) Snoqualmie Pass East Project, in Kittitas County, Washington is proposed. The Federal Highway Administration and the Washington Department of Transportation prepared a 2005 draft EIS and a 2008 final EIS for proposed improvements to a 15-mile portion of I-90 immediately east of Snoqualmie Pass in the Cascade Mountains, from Hyak at milepost 55.1 to Easton at milepost 70.3. This stretch of I-90 passes through the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. In fall 2011, the contractor constructing the portion of the I-90 project that encompasses the snowshed along Keechelus Lake proposed a design modification that would replace the existing snowshed with eastbound and westbound avalanche bridges instead of the expanded snowshed included in the alternative selected in the 2008 Record of Decision. This draft supplemental EIS considers the two design options for the portion of I-90 between milepost 57.9 and milepost 58.4. Both design options meet the I-90 project purpose and need, cost about the same to construct, occupy roughly the same footprint, and result in similar impacts to natural resources. The snowshed would minimize the need for highway closures due to avalanches, avalanche control, and rock fall. However, this enclosed structure requires fire and life-safety systems that are expensive to operate and maintain. The proposed bridges would provide comparable avalanche and rock fall protection and avoid the need for fire and life-safety systems. The annual cost to operate and maintain the bridges and the snowshed are estimated at $100,000 and over $750,000, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed avalanche bridges would result in potential cost savings of $48 million over the 75-year design life of the structures. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The avalanche bridges would impact 3.3 acres more terrestrial habitat and require acquisition of additional highway easement area as compared to the snowshed option LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0640D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 08-0462F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120311, 124 pages, October 5, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-05-01-DS KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Forests KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Okanogan-Wenatcheee National Forest KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Recreational Resources KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314486927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2008%29.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+90+SNOQUALMIE+PASS+EAST%2C+KITTITAS+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+AUGUST+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 5, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SIGURD TO RED BUTTE NO. 2 - 345KV TRANSMISSION PROJECT, BEAVER, IRON, MILLARD, SEVIER, AND WASHINGTON COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 1314486923; 15507 AB - PURPOSE: The granting of permanent right-of-way (ROW) across federal land for a single-circuit, alternating-current, 345-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line which would extend approximately 170 miles between the Sigurd Substation in Sevier County, Utah to the Red Butte Substation in Washington County, Utah is proposed. The capacity of the southwest Utah electrical system, including the existing 345-kV transmission line (Sigurd to Red Butte No. 1), is expected to be exceeded by 2014. PacifiCorp, doing business as Rocky Mountain Power, requested the 150-foot-wide ROW for construction and operation of the Sigurd to Red Butte No. 2 Transmission Line Project which would cross lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management as well as portions of the Dixie and Fishlake National Forests. The project would include construction of access roads and expansion of the existing Sigurd Substation on private land to accommodate new substation equipment. The transmission line would cross portions of Sevier, Millard, Beaver, Iron, and Washington counties and may affect the areas around the communities of Sigurd, Richfield, Joseph, Elsinore, Milford, Newcastle, Minersville, Enterprise, Pinto, Central, and Pine Valley. Thirteen alternative routes (and two route variations) and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative routes N1 to N6 in the northern area segment would begin at Sigurd Substation and end south of the Black Mountains. Alternative routes S1 to S7 in the southern area segment would begin south of the Black Mountains and end at Red Butte Substation. Supporting structures would be 80 to 140 feet in height and spacing typically would be between 800 and 1,200 feet. Communications would be provided via optical fibers installed on the transmission lines. The proponent's proposed route is the combination of Alternatives N6 and S5. Alternative route N6 is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline and extends 105.5 miles following an existing transmission line over the Mineral Mountains. Alternative route S5, 59 miles in length, turns southwest at Iron Springs, crosses the Antelope Range and State Route 56, and passes the community of Pinto. The agency preferred alternative is the combination of Alternatives N2-A and S7-A. Alternative route N2-A is located 1,500 feet east of the Kern River pipeline near the Blundell Geothermal Plant, then turns west for 9.1 miles before turning south to parallel the Intermountain Power Project (IPP) 500-kV transmission line. The alternative route parallels the IPP 1,500 feet to the east for 37.8 miles before terminating south of the Black Mountains. The Alternative S7-A route variation is 49.8 miles in length and would reduce impacts on the Atchinson inventoried roadless area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new transmission line would provide the additional transfer capacity between Sigurd and Red Butte for PacifiCorp to meet its contracted transmission obligations by 2014. Redundancy to existing infrastructure would substantially improve the reliability of electrical service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate emissions, impact soils, and occur across areas associated with geologic hazards, including earthquakes and landslides. Construction of access roads, work areas, and river and stream crossings could result in disturbance of riparian vegetation and deposition of fill into wetlands or waters of the United States. Project-related activities would affect Utah prairie dog, sage grouse, and southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed routes would traverse mountains and intact landscapes impacting scenic quality and wilderness attributes. 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: 120310, Final EIS--826 pages, Maps--77 pages, Appendices--620 pages, October 5, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-UT-C010-2009-0048-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Communication Systems KW - Electric Power KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Dixie National Forest KW - Fishlake National Forest KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1314486923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-10-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SIGURD+TO+RED+BUTTE+NO.+2+-+345KV+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+BEAVER%2C+IRON%2C+MILLARD%2C+SEVIER%2C+AND+WASHINGTON+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Cedar City, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 5, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IMPERIAL SAND DUNES RECREATION AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1312412284; 15496 AB - PURPOSE: A Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for 214,930 acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) El Centro Field Office in Imperial County, California is proposed. The Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area is located in the southeast corner of California and extends for more than 40 miles in a band averaging five miles wide. Known as a favorite location for off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiasts with over 1.4 million OHV visitors per year, the dunes also offer scenery, opportunities for solitude, and a home to rare plants and animals. The dune system consists of three areas. The northernmost area is known as Mammoth Wash, an open area that allows OHV use and offers a more isolated experience. South of Mammoth Wash is the North Algodones Dunes Wilderness Area which was established in 1994 and is closed to all mechanized traffic. The largest and most heavily used area begins at Highway 78 and continues south to the international border. Key issues include those related to motorized recreation, allowable uses, resource protection, law enforcement, solid waste and hazardous materials management, and facilities management. Eight alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would continue management as prescribed in the 1987 RAMP. Alternative 2 would perpetuate present management based on plan updates developed in 2003. Alternative 3 would emphasize preservation of resources through limited public use. Alternatives 4 through 6 would utilize a combination of natural processes and active management techniques for recreation and use management. Alternative 7 would emphasize consumer-driven uses and the widest array of uses, such as renewable energy, transportation, and utility rights-of-way, and enhanced recreational opportunities including motorized use. Alternative 8 is the proposed plan and would provide for a balance between authorized resource use and the protection and long-term sustainability of sensitive resources. All critical habitat for the endangered Peirson's milk-vetch would be closed to OHV recreation, 127,416 acres would be designated as open OHV management, 35,144 acres would be designated as closed, and 52,370 acres would be designated for limited use. Campgrounds south of Wash 25 and north of Wash 69, as well as the Dunebuggy Flats campground would be closed to camping but open to OHV use. The preferred alternative is Alternative 8 with the exception of two areas. The Dunebuggy Flats campground would be managed as analyzed in Alternative 7. It would not be seasonally closed, nor would the BLM-managed land surrounding the campground have a seasonal closure. The microphyll woodlands would be managed under a combination of Alternatives 7 and 8. Wash Road, which provides access to the microphyll woodlands, would be open as far as the current level of use as analyzed under Alternative 7. The area beyond current use (Wash 33 to Wash 70) would be closed as analyzed under Alternative 8. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RAMP would provide for a variety of sustainable OHV and other recreational activities and maintain or improve the conditions of special status species and other unique natural and cultural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts of OHV recreation on wildlife species would continue, including destruction of soil stabilizers, soil compaction, reduced rates of water infiltration, increased wind and water erosion, noise, decreased abundance of wildlife populations, and destruction of vegetation. Roadway development would disrupt water flow patterns that sustain habitat within microphyll woodlands and wash-dissected creosote scrub. Under the proposed plan, the majority of Mojave desert tortoise habitat would be available for solar and wind development and adverse impacts to tortoise and potential habitat could occur. 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 10-0202D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120299, Volume I--597 pages, Volume II: Appendices--1,391 pages, 50 maps, September 14, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Agency number: FES-12-29 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dunes KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Insects KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - California KW - Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1312412284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-09-14&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=IMPERIAL+SAND+DUNES+RECREATION+AREA+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%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 - 2013-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 14, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ODESSA SUBAREA SPECIAL STUDY, COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT, LINCOLN, ADAMS, GRANT, AND FRANKLIN COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 1285624067; 15483 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of groundwater used for irrigation in the Odessa Ground Water Management Subarea with Columbia Basin Project (CBP) surface water in Grant, Adams, Franklin and Lincoln counties, Washington is proposed. The surface water would be provided by further developing existing CBP water rights for diversion and storage of water from the Columbia River system, and by constructing or modifying distribution systems and appurtenant structures. Groundwater levels in wells of the Odessa Subarea have declined steadily since pumping began in the 1960s and, as a result, the ability of farmers to irrigate their crops is at risk. This final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives to partially or fully replace groundwater used to irrigate eligible acres in the study area. The six alternatives consist of variations in the water supply that would be used: Option A would use storage in and additional drawdowns from Banks Lake, exclusively; and Option B would use storage in Banks Lake and Lake Roosevelt, resulting in drawdowns from both reservoirs. The partial replacement alternatives (2A and 2B) would deliver 138,000 acre-feet of water annually to irrigate 57,000 acres. The partial replacement alternatives focus on surface water replacement for acreage located south of Interstate Highway 90 (I-90) that can be served by expanding and extending the existing East Low Canal. The full replacement alternatives (3A and 3B) would deliver 273,000 acre-feet of water to serve all or most of the 102,600 eligible acres in the study area. Water provided to acreage south of I-90 would be conveyed via an expanded and extended East Low Canal while lands north of I-90 would be served by constructing a new East High Canal system. The modified partial replacement alternatives (4A and 4B) would divert 164,000 acre-feet of water and provide surface water replacement for approximately 70,000 acres of currently groundwater-irrigated lands both north and south of I-90. Alternative 4A is the preferred alternative. Construction and land acquisition costs are estimated at $827.5 million and maximum operating costs are estimated at $7.9 million. Phased construction could begin as early as 2014. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address declining groundwater supply in the study area and avoid significant economic loss to the region's agricultural sector. Hydrologic modeling indicates that there would be no significant change in Columbia River flows. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New facilities would impact native plant communities and several special status species, including migratory birds. Drawdowns would result in substantially more exposure of Banks Lake littoral habitat in some years, but the temporary dewatering of benthic macroinvertebrates is not expected to affect fish populations in the lake. The preferred alternative would require acquisition of 4,740 acres of land (easements and fee title). Recreation facilities and activities at Banks Lake would be impacted in August and September. Visual character would be changed by the conversion of about 35,000 acres to dryland or fallow, the presence of pumping plants and regulating tanks north and south of I-90, and the additional drawdown at Banks Lake. LEGAL MANDATES: Columbia Basin Project Act of 1943 (16 U.S.C. 835 et seq.), Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (53 Stat, 1107), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0349D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120286, Final EIS--1,285 pages, Comments and Responses--721 pages, September 7, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Birds KW - Canals KW - Farm Management KW - Farmlands KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Irrigation KW - Lakes KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Banks Lake KW - Columbia River KW - Lake Roosevelt KW - Washington KW - Columbia Basin Project Act of 1943, Project Authorization KW - Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Program Authorization 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/1285624067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-09-07&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ODESSA+SUBAREA+SPECIAL+STUDY%2C+COLUMBIA+BASIN+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+ADAMS%2C+GRANT%2C+AND+FRANKLIN+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ODESSA+SUBAREA+SPECIAL+STUDY%2C+COLUMBIA+BASIN+PROJECT%2C+LINCOLN%2C+ADAMS%2C+GRANT%2C+AND+FRANKLIN+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 7, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 1282511869; 15474 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. Key issues include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing 100-foot-wide ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet in width. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet in width, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. The preferred alternative is Alternative 2 with the incorporation of critical mitigation measures, including an avian protection plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three known archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120277, Volume I--764 pages, Volume II--868 pages, Volume III--534 pages, August 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282511869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKERSFIELD FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MADERA, SAN LUIS OBISPO, SANTA BARBARA, VENTURA, KINGS, TULARE, EASTERN FRESNO, AND WESTERN KERN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1282511864; 15473 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the future management of public lands and resources in southern-central California administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Bakersfield Field Office, are proposed. The planning area for the Resource Management Plan (RMP) encompasses 17 million acres within Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Kings, Tulare, eastern Fresno, and western Kern counties. Stretching from the coastal islands in the Pacific Ocean across the Central Valley to the crest of the Sierra Nevada Range, public lands are scattered across the planning area in numerous small parcels. The BLM is responsible for the management of 400,000 acres of public land and 1.2 million acres of Federal mineral estate. If approved, this RMP would replace the 1997 Caliente RMP, and a portion of the 1984 Hollister RMP. The planning area has undergone many changes since the completion of the existing RMPs, resulting in a tremendous increase in the demand for, and the use of, public lands. Planning issues include: 1) access and availability of public lands for recreational and open spaces; 2) balance between the travel network and protection of natural and cultural resources; 3) protection of threatened and endangered species, critical habitat, other biological resources, and cultural and paleontological resources in a multiple-use environment; 4) livestock grazing management to provide for economic benefit, rural lifestyles and vegetation management while protecting other resources; 5) balance between energy development and other land use authorizations with resource values; and 6) climate change. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative B, which is the preferred alternative, would balance resource conservation and ecosystem health with the production of commodities and public use of the land. Additional protection would be provided for approximately one half of the federally listed species known or with potential to occur in the decision area and the impacts of motorized routes on both biological and cultural resources would be reduced. Prescriptive management would provide protection for 21 percent of the lands with wilderness characteristics outside of wilderness and wilderness study areas. Other compatible designations would protect an additional 24 percent of these lands. In addition, two segments of rivers would be designated as suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) and 99,500 acres would be designated as areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Six rivers would no longer receive interim management; however, impacts to their outstandingly remarkable values would be unlikely because of overlapping special management. Alternative C would emphasize protection of physical, biological, and heritage resources, while providing for the smallest level of development, comparatively. Alternative D mimics the emphasis on protection in Alternative C, but would eliminate livestock grazing. Alternatives C and D would protect all lands with wilderness characteristics through prescriptive management, designate eight river segments as suitable for NWSRS status, and protect the largest area (101,010 acres) through designation as ACECs. Alternative E would emphasize the production of natural resources commodities and public use opportunities. Resource uses such as recreation, livestock grazing, mining, and oil/gas leasing would be emphasized. Potential impacts on sensitive resources would be mitigated on a case-by-case basis. All alternatives would continue fluid mineral development opportunities at or near current levels. Under Alternatives C and D there would be a total elimination of solid leasable mineral development opportunity whilst the remaining alternatives would continue to provide opportunity commensurate to the current condition. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The RMP would ensure that lands administered by the BLM are managed in accordance with the principles of multiple use and sustained yield. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, 8,900 acres of lands with wilderness characteristics would be at risk of loss of those characteristics. Recreational visitation would have a moderate potential for increased incidence of human-caused fires. Disturbance related to motorized access could impact 388 recorded cultural sites. Loss of opportunity for utility scale renewable energy projects would result from the exclusion of 25 percent of areas with potential for such development. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120276, 1,073 pages, August 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282511864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BAKERSFIELD+FIELD+OFFICE+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MADERA%2C+SAN+LUIS+OBISPO%2C+SANTA+BARBARA%2C+VENTURA%2C+KINGS%2C+TULARE%2C+EASTERN+FRESNO%2C+AND+WESTERN+KERN+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Bakersfield, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST OIL AND GAS LEASING, EAGLE, GARFIELD, GUNNISON, MESA, MOFFAT, PITKIN, RIO BLANCO, ROUTT, AND SUMMIT COUNTIES, COLORADO. AN - 1282511838; 15481 AB - PURPOSE: The revision of the oil and gas leasing program for the White River National Forest (WRNF), Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison, Mesa, Moffat, Pitkin, Rio Blanco, Routt, and Summit Counties, Colorado is proposed. The WRNF issued its current oil and gas leasing availability decision in 1993 and information and circumstances considered for that decision have changed, including the WRNF issuance of a revised Land and Resource Management Plan in 2002, technological advances in oil and gas exploration and development that expand development potential of previously uneconomic resources, and increased level of projected oil and gas development potential activities on the WRNF. The usefulness and applicability of decisions made on an oil and gas leasing analysis are typically valid for up to 10 to 15 years and the 1993 leasing document is clearly coming to the end of its planning cycle. Four alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue current management of the leasing program and 417,264 acres would continue to be administratively available for oil and gas leasing. Under Alternative B, no National Forest System lands administered by the WRNF would be available in the future for oil and gas leasing. Operations on 131,141 acres of existing leased lands would continue under applicable lease terms, statutory and regulatory direction, and Forest Plan direction. Existing federal oil and gas leases on the WRNF that are not extended by production would terminate at the conclusion of their primary term. Alternative C is the proposed action and would make 260,308 acres administratively available, close through management direction 1.2 million acres, and legally close 800,555 acres. Alternative D is a modification of the proposed action which would include no surface occupancy and controlled surface use stipulations for roadless areas. Under the action alternatives, all of the lands identified as recommended for wilderness, wild rivers (designated and eligible), scenic rivers (designated and eligible), and recreation rivers (designated and eligible) and designated in the WRNF Forest Plan within these management area prescriptions would be closed for oil and gas leasing through management direction. The Bureau of Land Management will determine whether or not to adopt the WRNF Oil and Gas Leasing EIS and associated analysis as its own. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The revision would provide an updated oil and gas leasing planning cycle consistent with the WRNF Forest Plan; account for the increase in leasing, drilling, and production activity; account for the changes in public awareness and attitudes toward oil and gas activities, and meet the requirements of changing government policy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The effects of potential future development of oil and gas leases could include: degradation of air quality and water quality; changes in stream hydrology; physical impacts to terrestrial wildlife habitats and movement corridors; negative impacts to populations and habitats of management status plant species; degradation or destruction of paleontological resources; changes in the quantity and quality of recreation settings and recreation opportunities in winter and summer; impacts to scenery resources and the roadless character of inventoried roadless areas or areas of special interest; and impacts to local economies from changes in tourism, grazing, forest product availability and other indirect effects. Under Alternative C, reasonably foreseeable future action would disturb up to 1,290 acres with up to 570 acres of long-term disturbance. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987 (26 CFR 228, 1990), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120284, 622 pages, August 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality 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 - White River National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization KW - Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Reform Act of 1987, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282511838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+GUNNISON%2C+MESA%2C+MOFFAT%2C+PITKIN%2C+RIO+BLANCO%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WHITE+RIVER+NATIONAL+FOREST+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASING%2C+EAGLE%2C+GARFIELD%2C+GUNNISON%2C+MESA%2C+MOFFAT%2C+PITKIN%2C+RIO+BLANCO%2C+ROUTT%2C+AND+SUMMIT+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Carbondale, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA FEE-TO-TRUST, COCONUT CREEK, BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1282511821; 15477 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of 45 acres of property owned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida (STOF) from fee ownership to a federal trust and the subsequent development of a hotel/resort and other ancillary uses in Broward County, Florida are proposed. The project site is within the western city limits of Coconut Creek and in the general vicinity of the northeast quadrant of Sample Road and State Route 7, also known as US 441. Although the property is adjacent to the existing STOF Coconut Creek Casino and would support the casino operations, neither the proposed project nor any of the alternatives considered in detail would expand gaming activities. Three alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), development would include a 1,000-room twenty-story hotel tower adjacent to a resort-type pool and spa area along the western boundary of the project site, a conference center, and a 2,500 seat showroom facility. Alternative A would additionally include the previously abandoned section of NW 40th Street upon which a seven-level 2,400 space parking garage has been developed. Alternative A would increase an expansion of this parking structure. Without the incorporation of Coconut Creek approvals and agreements (Sub-Alternative A-1), the multi-phase development would include the development of a STOF water supply and wastewater treatment system or infrastructure connections to other municipal utility providers through service agreements. Alternative B would involve reduced intensity development on the fee-to-trust property and would include a ten-story 500-room hotel tower, a 2,250-space six-story parking structure on the southwest corner of the project site, a 2,500 seat showroom, and a retail village. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would not rely on Coconut Creek approvals and agreements for water, wastewater, fire, and law enforcement services. Rather, public utilities and services would be provided on-site or through service agreements with outside municipal utility providers for water and wastewater services. Under Alternative C, the No Action Alternative, no land would be placed into federal trust and land use jurisdiction of the project site would remain with the City of Coconut Creek. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would consolidate STOF land holdings surrounding the existing trust property into one contiguous trust property and strengthen the socioeconomic status of the tribe by providing an augmented revenue source. The proposed development would provide business and job opportunities for tribal members and non-tribal members and allow STOF to diversify its holdings over time, so that it is no longer dependent upon the government or even upon gaming to survive and prosper. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related ground disturbance could result in discharge of sediment and pollutants into surface waters. The site and surrounding vicinity represent potential habitat for the federally listed wood stork and lighting systems proposed within the development could potentially attract birds that could be injured or killed upon impact. Resort operations would result in an increase in vehicle traffic on the surrounding roadways and the 20-story hotel would represent a major alteration to the viewshed. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120280, Draft EIS--360 pages, Appendices--2,113 pages, August 31, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources KW - Wastewater KW - Florida KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282511821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-31&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEMINOLE+TRIBE+OF+FLORIDA+FEE-TO-TRUST%2C+COCONUT+CREEK%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=SEMINOLE+TRIBE+OF+FLORIDA+FEE-TO-TRUST%2C+COCONUT+CREEK%2C+BROWARD+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&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 - 2013-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 31, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-01-30 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BARREN RIDGE RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, GRANT, KERN AND LOS ANGELES COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1240203663; 15460 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of a critical power transmission line in Kern and Los Angeles Counties, California to connect new sources of renewable energy with demand centers in the Los Angeles metropolitan area is proposed. The Barren Ridge Renewable Transmission Project (BRRTP) would accommodate new wind and solar projects in the Tehachapi Mountains and Mojave Desert that are in various stages of planning and development. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) has applied to the Forest Service for a special use authorization and to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way (ROW) grant for the project. The BRRTP would span approximately 75 miles from the Mojave Desert south to the San Fernando Valley and extend another 12 miles west to the Castaic Power Plant, a pump-storage generating facility where renewable energy can be stored until needed to meet utility customer power needs. The proposed action would include: 1) expansion of the existing Barren Ridge Switching Station (BRSS); 2) construction of a new electrical switching station within Haskell Canyon near the southern boundary of the Angeles National Forest (ANF); 3) construction of a new 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line from the BRSS to Haskell Canyon on double-circuit structures; 4) upgrade of 76 miles of the existing Owens Gorge-Rinaldi 230-kV transmission line with larger capacity conductors between the BRSS and Rinaldi Substation; and 5) addition of a 12-mile 230-kV circuit on existing double circuit structures from Haskell Canyon to the Castaic Power Plant. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Only the new double-circuit 230-kV transmission line would differ between the action alternatives. Under the proposed action and preferred alternative (Alternative 2), a new 61-mile-long transmission line would run south from the BRSS near the unincorporated community of Mojave, through the Antelope Valley and one mile east of the Antelope Valley California Poppy Reserve, before continuing onto the ANF for 13 miles and ending at the proposed Haskell Canyon switching station. The entire route would remain within designated utility corridors and would parallel existing transmission lines. Under Alternative 1, an 83-mile-long transmission line would traverse the ANF for 15.9 miles. Alternative 2a is similar to Alternative 2 and would involve construction of a 63-mile-long transmission line that would avoid the unincorporated community of Green Valley. Alternative 3 would route the transmission line through Southern California Edison's Antelope Valley Substation and would extend a total of 76 miles including 4.4 miles on the ANF. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The BRRTP would provide about 1,100 megawatts of additional power transmission capacity to access vital wind and solar resources that are necessary for LADWP to meet the state-mandated 33 percent renewable energy standard. In addition to accessing clean, renewable energy resources, the $233 million project would also enhance transmission capacity to improve reliability and diversify the region's energy supply. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would generate excessive levels of nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, impact traffic on local roads, and affect 15 sites eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Under the preferred alternative, the new 230-kV transmission line would cross 78 streams and result in 57 to 70 acres of permanent ground disturbance. Operation would cause cumulative impacts to slender mariposa lily, short-jointed beavertail cactus, desert tortoise, and California gnatcatcher. Visual and recreation resources, including the Pacific Coast National Scenic Trail, would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120263, Volume I--1,293 pages, Volume II--Appendices, Volume III--Technical Reports, Volume IV-Technical Reports, Volume V--Maps, August 10, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Angeles National Forest KW - California KW - Mojave Desert 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/1240203663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BARREN+RIDGE+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+KERN+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=BARREN+RIDGE+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+GRANT%2C+KERN+AND+LOS+ANGELES+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Vallejo, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FEDERAL COAL LEASE MODIFICATIONS COC-1362 AND COC-67232, PAONIA RANGER DISTRICT, GRAND MESA, UNCOMPAHGRE AND GUNNISON NATIONAL FORESTS, GUNNISON COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1240203170; 15458 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing federal coal leases on National Forest System surface lands managed by the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests in Gunnison County, Colorado is proposed. Ark Land Company applied to expand federal coal leases COC-1362 and COC-67232 by adding 800 and 921 acres, respectively. Coal in the existing leases is mined by Mountain Coal Company (MCC), a subsidiary of Ark Land, from their West Elk Mine near Somerset, Colorado. The coal estate is administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). If the lease modifications occur, the coal would be accessed and recovered by underground longwall mining methods from the existing mine and the coal would be transported using MCCs existing coal transportation system and surface facilities. Under a foreseeable mine plan scenario, surface uses on the modifications may include exploration drilling, methane drainage wells (MDWs), and associated access roads. Specific locations of the wells and roads will not be known until time specific mine plans are approved. Approximately 1,701 acres of the proposed modification areas are within the Sunset Roadless Area. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2, the Forest Service would consent to leasing and BLM would modify the leases with stipulations. However, under the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule framework, road construction would not be allowed in the modification areas. Surface uses such as MDW pad construction and exploration pad construction would have to be accomplished by cross-country travel of heavy equipment or via helicopter transport. Under Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, the Forest Service would consent to leasing and BLM would modify the leases with stipulations and a lease notice in the context of the Colorado Roadless Rule. Under this rule, road construction would be allowed to support coal-related activities within the Sunset Colorado Roadless Area (CRA). Alternative 4 would involve consent to modify only lease COC-1362. Lease stipulations would protect cultural/paleontological resources, threatened/endangered species, Canada Lynx, raptors, big game winter range, water resources, breeding birds, riparian areas, wetlands, roadless characteristics, and visual resources. The quantity of minable coal in both lease modifications would likely extend existing operations by 19 months. An additional 16 to 17 months of mining in coal on adjacent private lands could also be realized by access gained through the lease modification areas. No increase in the rate of coal production is anticipated nor would any additional jobs be created as a result of the lease modifications. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed lease modifications would ensure that reserves of high quality coal are recovered. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Operations would disturb 72 total acres with potential adverse impacts to wildlife species including American marten, pygmy shrew, northern goshawk, boreal owl, hoary bat, and northern leopard frog. Subsidence would affect about 2,400 acres, including additional adjacent reserves on private and federal lands. However, the long-term effects of subsidence on surface topography would be minimal. Mining induced seismic events may occur, but are not expected to cause damage to surface resources. Subsidence may alter surface water and groundwater hydrology and could result in changes in channel morphology and gradient thereby affecting water quality. Roadless characteristics within the Sunset Roadless Area would be adversely impacted over the short-term. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120261, Final EIS and Appendices--634 pages, Comments--1,779 pages, August 10, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Hydrology KW - Leasing KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Roads KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Grand Mesa National Forest KW - Gunnison National Forest KW - Uncompahgre National Forest KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1240203170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+MODIFICATIONS+COC-1362+AND+COC-67232%2C+PAONIA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHGRE+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=FEDERAL+COAL+LEASE+MODIFICATIONS+COC-1362+AND+COC-67232%2C+PAONIA+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+GRAND+MESA%2C+UNCOMPAHGRE+AND+GUNNISON+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+GUNNISON+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Delta, Colorado; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RENEWAL OF NAVAL AIR WEAPONS STATION CHINA LAKE PUBLIC LAND WITHDRAWAL, INYO, KERN, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1240203140; 15455 AB - PURPOSE: The renewal for an additional 25 years of the withdrawal of over one million acres of public lands in Kern, Inyo, and San Bernardino counties, California for research, development, acquisition, test and evaluation (RDAT&E) activities at Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake (NAWSCL) is proposed. These lands were formerly administered by the Bureau of Land Management, but administration of withdrawn lands was transferred to the Navy in 1994. NAWSCL is located in the upper Mojave Desert of southeastern California and consists of two major land areas: the North Range and the South Range. The combination of the NAWSCL location, complex and varied terrain, widespread instrumentation sites, unique test capabilities, and highly skilled technical workforce provides the most advanced and efficient method of conducting critical RDAT&E necessary to maintain technical standards in the interest of national defense. RDAT&E and training events at NAWSCL include: air-to-air, surface-to-air, air-to-ground, surface-to-surface, energetics/ordnance, electromagnetics, and track test. Additional fleet and Department of Defense training events supported include air combat, aircrew, combat skills, and ground troop training. This legislative draft EIS considers three alternatives. The proposed action (Alternative 1) would include: Congressional renewal of the land withdrawal; provision for an up to 25 percent increase of RDAT&E and training tempo within current land use areas approved for designated uses; expansion of unmanned aerial and surface systems by 25 percent or more; and the expansion of existing and introduction of evolving directed energy weapons development. Directed energy weapons systems include high energy lasers and high-powered microwave. The baseline alternative (Alternative 2) would include Congressional renewal of the land withdrawal, revision and implementation of the comprehensive land use management plan, and continuation of RDAT&E and training activities at current levels. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 3), the land withdrawal would expire and the Navys authority to use approximately 92 percent of the NAWSCL lands would terminate. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would accommodate current and evolving state-of-the-art RDAT&E and training requirements at NAWSCL and help ensure necessary training readiness appropriate management of land use and environmental resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed activities have the potential to cause brush fires and would continue to have potentially significant direct impacts to federally protected species including desert tortoise, Mojave tui chub, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bells vireo, and Inyo California towhee. Under the proposed action, increased aircraft operations would result in an increase in air emissions. Off-installation noise effects from aircraft flight operations would continue to exceed noise compatibility thresholds at certain noise-sensitive receptors in the communities of China Lake Acres and Ridgecrest. Increased use of test areas and targets could result in an increase in disturbance to cultural resources. LEGAL MANDATES: California Desert Protection Act of 1994 (16 U.S.C. 410aaa et seq.) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120258, Draft EIS--628 pages, Appendices--410 pages, August 10, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Desert Land KW - Fires KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Military Operations (Navy) KW - Munitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake California KW - California Desert Protection Act of 1994, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1240203140?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RENEWAL+OF+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+STATION+CHINA+LAKE+PUBLIC+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+INYO%2C+KERN%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=RENEWAL+OF+NAVAL+AIR+WEAPONS+STATION+CHINA+LAKE+PUBLIC+LAND+WITHDRAWAL%2C+INYO%2C+KERN%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2012-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAN JOAQUIN RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1240203131; 15454 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive effort to restore flows and a self-sustaining Chinook salmon fishery to the San Joaquin River in the Central Valley of California is proposed. The Friant Dam, which was completed in 1944, diverted San Joaquin River water supplies to over one million acres of highly productive farmland along the eastern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. Operation of the dam ceased flow in some portions of the river, and substantially impacted salmon runs upstream from the confluence with the Merced River. In 1988, a coalition of environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the renewal of long-term water service contracts between the United States and Central Valley Project (CVP) Friant Division contractors. The San Joaquin River Restoration Program is based on the settlement agreement of Natural Resources Defense Council et al., v. Rodgers, et al. reached on September 13, 2006. The agreement calls for releases of water from Friant Dam (referred to as interim and restoration flows), a combination of channel and structural modifications along the San Joaquin River below Friant Dam, and reintroduction of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon. In addition, the settlement agreement calls for recirculation, recapture, reuse, exchange, or transfer of the interim and restoration flows to reduce or avoid impacts to water deliveries to all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. A recovered water account and recovered water program would be established to make water available to all of the contractors who provide water to meet interim or restoration flows. The draft EIS of April 2011 evaluated a No Action Alternative and six action alternatives which differ in the amount of flow that would be routed through Reach 4B1, and the way water would be recaptured. All the action alternatives would modify operation of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control Project to convey interim and restoration flows. Modifications would include reoperation of the Chowchilla Bypass Bifurcation Structure, the San Joaquin River Headgate Structure, and the Eastside and Mariposa bypass bifurcation structures. This final EIS includes responses to comments on the draft EIS and identifies Alternative C1 as the preferred alternative. Alternative C1 would convey 475 cubic feet per second and would recapture water flows in the restoration area and in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using a new pumping plant that would be constructed at a location below the confluence of the Merced River. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would foster the restoration of naturally reproducing and self-sustaining populations of salmon and other fish while reducing or avoiding adverse impacts to water deliveries to the Friant Division long-term contractors. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Physical and operational actions would affect the San Joaquin River and associated flood bypass system, tributaries to the San Joaquin River, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and water service areas of the CVP and State Water Project, including the Friant Division. Uncertainty exists as to the amount of water supply reduction the Friant Division contractors would experience. Potential impacts include construction-related emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases, changes in groundwater and surface water levels, conversion of important farmland, diminishment of agricultural land resource quality, conflicts with adopted land use plans, and reduced water supply. LEGAL MANDATES: San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act (Public Law 111-11). JF - EPA number: 120257, Final EIS--1,800 pages, Appendices--500 pages, August 10, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Fisheries Management KW - Flood Control KW - Floodplains KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Irrigation KW - Pumping Plants KW - Rivers KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Supply KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - San Joaquin River KW - San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1240203131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SAN+JOAQUIN+RIVER+RESTORATION+PROGRAM%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 10, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CLARK, LINCOLN, AND WHITE PINE COUNTIES GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, NEVADA. AN - 1237021050; 15451 AB - PURPOSE: A right-of-way (ROW) grant that would enable the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) to construct and operate a buried pipeline system and associated infrastructure to support the future conveyance of groundwater to Las Vegas Valley from five hydrologic basins in east-central Nevada is proposed. Groundwater rights in Spring, Snake, Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave valleys have either been awarded to SNWA or applications are pending. SNWAs long-term water demands, including allowances for further conservation, are greater than what could be served with existing resources. The proposed Clark, Lincoln, and White Pine Counties Groundwater Development Project would include main and lateral pipelines, power lines, five pumping stations, a substation, three pressure reduction stations, an underground water reservoir, a water treatment plant and associated ancillary facilities. The project would be located primarily within the 2,640-foot-wide corridor established by the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act (LCCRDA) which designated utility corridors to be used for ROWs for water conveyance systems in Lincoln and Clark Counties. The requested ROW extends beyond the northern boundary of the designated corridor into White Pine County in Spring and Snake valleys. For engineering feasibility reasons and/or to minimize impacts, the requested ROW also deviates from the corridor in a few locations in Clark and Lincoln Counties. This final EIS considers the proposed action, a No Action Alternative, and six action alternatives. Specifics of associated future water development are treated programmatically and conceptually. Three ROW alignments are assessed and each alignment is paired with one or more groundwater development alternatives: 1) the full proposed 306-mile ROW, which supports the proposed action and Alternatives A through C; 2) the 225-mile LCCRDA ROW in Lincoln and Clark County only, which supports Alternative D; and 3) a 263-mile ROW with an extension into Spring Valley in White Pine County defined as the Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake and Cave valleys alignment, which supports Alternatives E and F. A construction water supply well would be needed approximately every 10 miles along the pipeline alignment. Alternative F, which is the preferred alternative, would include facilities to pump up to 114,129 acre-feet per year of new applications from four basins at distributed locations within Spring, Delamar, Dry Lake, and Cave valleys. Alignment Option 1, the Humboldt-Toiyabe Power Line Alignment, would route the power line in Steptoe Valley, east of Ely, across Forest Service lands through an existing utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow SNWA to diversify its water resources to ensure it can continue to meet water supply obligations and meet projected future water demands. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Air pollutant emissions would occur over an 11-year period. Construction of the preferred alternative would entail clearing of 10,681 acres, including 2,350 acres of land with prime farmland characteristics; 9,736 acres would be reclaimed. Vegetation clearing would affect big game range, two wild horse management areas, and habitats for special status wildlife species including desert tortoise and sage grouse. ROWs and ancillary facilities would cross the Coyote Springs and Kane Springs areas of critical environmental concern and 20 grazing allotments. Surface disturbance and aboveground facilities would cause visual impacts from sensitive viewpoints including scenic byways and Great Basin National Park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-424), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (31 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120254, 1,786 pages plus Appendices, August 3, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/NV/ES/11-17+1793 KW - Desert Land KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Reclamation KW - Subsidence KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1237021050?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-08-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CLARK%2C+LINCOLN%2C+AND+WHITE+PINE+COUNTIES+GROUNDWATER+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-12-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 16381807; 15437 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy right-of-way (ROW) applications on a project-specific basis and, as of May 31, 2012, had approved 11 utility-scale solar projects on public lands and five linear ROWs that enabled development of projects on private lands. The draft programmatic EIS of December, 2010 considered three BLM program alternatives: a No Action Alternative; the preferred solar energy development program alternative which would prioritize development within identified solar energy zones (SEZs); and an SEZ program alternative which would exclude development outside the zones. A draft supplement issued in October, 2011 presented a modified solar energy development program alternative which would emphasize development within SEZs and implement a collaborative process to identify additional SEZs. Utility-scale solar development would be allowed in variance areas outside of SEZs in accordance with a proposed variance process. The preferred modified program alternative would also establish authorization policies and procedures for utility-scale solar energy development on BLM-administered lands. The BLM has carried forward 17 proposed SEZs, totaling approximately 285,000 acres of land, for analysis in this final programmatic EIS. Lands within SEZs would be offered through a competitive process and the BLM has initiated rulemaking to establish this process. New or expanded SEZs would be identified in the context of existing solar market conditions, existing and planned transmission systems, and state or federal policies affecting the level and location of utility-scale solar energy development. This final programmatic EIS also considers DOE program guidance for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including parabolic trough, power tower, dish engine systems, and photovoltaic systems. The No Action Alternative would perpetuate the DOE's case-by-case review process for solar projects while the preferred action alternative specifies programmatic guidance for the analysis and selection of solar projects that DOE will support. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive program would allow the permitting of future solar energy development projects on public lands to proceed in a more efficient, standardized, and environmentally responsible manner. The proposed SEZs would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted during both construction and operation phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120240, Volume 1--482 pages, Volume 2--466 pages, Volume 3--450 pages, Volume 4--622 pages, Volume 5--408 pages, Volume 6 (Appendices)--802 pages, Volume 7 (Comments and Responses)--308 pages, July 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 12-24 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16381807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 1220562908; 15444 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The 3.8-million-acre study area includes Louisiana's Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. After Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel in August 2005, it was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative C is the tentatively selected plan and would include restoration of approximately 57,472 acres of habitat, including 14,123 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 32,511 acres of brackish marsh; 10,318 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 54 acres of ridge habitat along Bayou La Loutre. The plan would include 71 miles of shoreline protection in Lake Borgne, along the MRGO, and in the Biloxi Marsh, as well as an adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 10,221 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,861 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitats, having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Recreation features are proposed at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs for the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the diversion channel would result in the loss of 302 acres of prime farmland and 227 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 54 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. Sea turtles and Gulf sturgeon may be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spills could affect the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0591D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120247, Final EIS--580 pages, Final Feasibility Report--285 pages, July 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Islands KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1220562908?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARINE CORPS AIR GROUND COMBAT CENTER LAND ACQUISITION AND AIRSPACE ESTABLISHMENT TO SUPPORT LARGE-SCALE MARINE AIR GROUND TASK FORCE LIVE FIRE AND MANEUVER TRAINING, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1220562907; 15443 AB - PURPOSE: The establishment of a large-scale training range facility at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms, California that would accommodate sustained, combined-arms, live-fire, and maneuver training for all elements of a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), which can consist of up to 20,000 personnel, is proposed. The Marine Corps would acquire additional land adjacent to the 600,000-acre Combat Center, establish and modify military special use airspace (SUA) above the proposed MEB-sized training range, and conduct the specified MEB training. The Combat Center is the place through which nearly all Marine Corps units rotate for training before deployment and it has insufficient land and airspace to meet MEB requirements. The installation is located in the Mojave Desert in San Bernardino County, 150 miles east of Los Angeles and 50 miles northeast of Palm Springs. The western boundary of the installation is adjacent to the Johnson Valley off-highway vehicle (OHV) area, which is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. This final EIS compares six action alternatives with a baseline No Action Alternative. Land acquisition under each action alternative would involve up to two acquisition study areas out of three such areas (west study area, east study area, and south study area) identified for potential acquisition. One alternative (Alternative 5) would involve land acquisition in only one of the three acquisition study areas. Alternative 6, which is the preferred alternative, would require the acquisition of 146,667 acres in the west study area and 21,304 acres in the south study area. The land acquired within the west study area in Johnson Valley would be divided into a 38,137-acre area that would be open for restricted public access and use during periods when the MEB exercise is not occurring, and a 108,530-acre area for exclusive military use. The communications infrastructure that supports current Combat Center range operations would be extended into any acquired land via the proposed installation of two or three communications towers. The modification of existing airspace would involve changes in vertical dimensions and times of use only, except for the Sundance Military Operations Area (MOA), which would be subject to modification of existing lateral dimensions. Acquired airspace would be returned to Federal Aviation Administration control to be made available for commercial and general aviation when not being used by the Marine Corps. Two full-scale MEB exercises involving sustained combined-arms, live-fire, and maneuver training would be conducted each year for 24 continuous days each. MEB building block training, including smaller-scale live fire and maneuver operations by units up to a single battalion in size, would occur in acquired exclusive military use areas during times of the year that MEB exercises are not being conducted. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new range would allow the Marines to provide sustained, combined-arms, live-fire and maneuver training for three MEBs to converge simultaneously on a common objective. The modification and establishment of SUA would enable full integration of MEB-sized aviation combat operations and both air- and ground-delivered live-fire ordnance use within appropriate margins of safety. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in significant, unmitigable impacts to: land use, as a result of incompatibility with the Johnson Valley OHV Area Management Plan; recreation, as a result of loss of access to and the use of 57 percent of the Johnson Valley OHV Area; and airspace management, as a result of the adverse effects of the proposed new and modified SUA. Training activities would also have potential adverse effects on desert tortoises including total potential take of between 645 and 3,769 federally threatened desert tortoises over the life of the project (between 503 and 834 in the acquisition study areas). JF - EPA number: 120246, Final EIS--1,031 pages, Appendices-953 pages, Responses to Comments--22,134 pages, July 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Defense Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Aircraft KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Communication Systems KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Desert Land KW - Emissions KW - Helicopters KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Land Use KW - Military Facilities (Marine Corps) KW - Military Operations (Marine Corps) KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Munitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation KW - Weapon Systems KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1220562907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARINE+CORPS+AIR+GROUND+COMBAT+CENTER+LAND+ACQUISITION+AND+AIRSPACE+ESTABLISHMENT+TO+SUPPORT+LARGE-SCALE+MARINE+AIR+GROUND+TASK+FORCE+LIVE+FIRE+AND+MANEUVER+TRAINING%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=MARINE+CORPS+AIR+GROUND+COMBAT+CENTER+LAND+ACQUISITION+AND+AIRSPACE+ESTABLISHMENT+TO+SUPPORT+LARGE-SCALE+MARINE+AIR+GROUND+TASK+FORCE+LIVE+FIRE+AND+MANEUVER+TRAINING%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Navy, Marine Corps Air Ground Task Force Training Command, Twentynine Palms, California; NAVY N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOST CREEK IN-SITU URANIUM RECOVERY PROJECT, SWEETWATER COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 1220562872; 15439 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and decommissioning of an in-situ leach uranium recovery facility, also known as an in-situ recovery (ISR) facility, in Sweetwater County, Wyoming is proposed. Lost Creek ISR, LLC (LCI) has filed a plan of operations to construct a uranium ore recovery plant, an access road to the site, and associated facilities. The proposed permit area consists of 4,254 acres remotely located on public land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State of Wyoming. Multiple subsurface ore bodies ranging in depth from 300 to 700 feet below the surface are found at the site. Development and recovery of the uranium would consist of dissolving underground uranium-bearing minerals into solution and then bringing the solution to the surface facility for concentration. A supplemental EIS was prepared by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the Lost Creek Project, and a material license was issued to LCI for the project on August 17, 2011. Under the proposed action, about 345 acres would be subjected to actual surface disturbance related to construction of pads for wells used to extract uranium in solution. Facilities would include: well pads for injection, production and monitoring; wellhead houses; a central processing facility; an access road network and pipeline system; and equipment for air and water quality monitoring. The plant site would comprise 10 acres, including parking space for about 50 to 60 employees. Each of three separate production areas containing uranium would be established and mined, one at a time, and about six million pounds of uranium would be produced from the permit area. The proposed action would occur over a 12-year period, including about seven months for initial construction, seven years for production, and the remaining time for final reclamation. This final EIS assesses the proposed project, two action alternatives, and a No Action Alternative. Under one project alternative, temporary fencing would be installed only around the drill pits, including those drilled within the mine units, and around the plant and storage ponds, as opposed to the entire well field of the pattern area. A second project alternative would include construction of a yellowcake drying and packing facility at the permit area. As with the proposed action, yellowcake slurry would be produced; however, the slurry would be filter-pressed to remove additional water, dried, and packaged on-site. The preferred Drying Yellowcake On-Site Alternative would result in fewer shipments from the site due to the difference in volume between yellowcake slurry and dried yellowcake. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would allow LCI to mine a valuable uranium deposit while ensuring that operations are conducted in a manner that prevents unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands. The project would also support energy-independence policies. The preferred alternative would reduce air quality impacts and traffic impacts, including the risk of transportation accidents and wildlife disturbance. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb 345 acres, remove sagebrush, and impact small mammals and birds, including greater sage-grouse. Habitat fragmentation and wildlife displacement would be reduced with mitigation and monitoring. Fencing would have minimal impacts on livestock grazing and wild horses. Small amounts of radon would be released from the mine units and plant. One prehistoric archaeological site recorded in the permit area would incur adverse effects. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120242, 1,214 pages, July 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: FES 12-31 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Disposal KW - Drilling KW - Geologic Sites KW - Grazing KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mining KW - Radioactive Substances KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wastewater KW - Water Quality 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/1220562872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOST+CREEK+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=LOST+CREEK+IN-SITU+URANIUM+RECOVERY+PROJECT%2C+SWEETWATER+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-29 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FOLSOM DAM MODIFICATION PROJECT APPROACH CHANNEL, SACRAMENTO, EL DORADO, AND PLACER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2007). AN - 1178585087; 15436 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of an auxiliary spillway approach channel adjacent to Folsom Dam on the American River in Sacramento, El Dorado, and Placer counties, California is proposed. The spillway is a major feature of the Folsom Dam Modification Project, also referred to as the Folsom Dam Safety/Flood Damage Reduction Project or Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project (JFP). The current spillway and outlets at the Folsom facility do not have sufficient discharge capacity for managing the predicted probable maximum flood and lesser flood event inflows above a 100-year event. The JFP is a cooperative effort between the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Central Valley Flood Protection Board, and the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. After a final EIS was issued in March 2007, an auxiliary spillway adjacent to the dam was selected as the plan to meet dam safety risk reduction and flood damage reduction objectives. The $962 million project involves the construction of a control structure, spillway chute, stilling basin and approaching channel. The new control structure will operate in conjunction with existing spillway gates on Folsom Dam to manage flood flows from the Folsom Reservoir. Construction of the Folsom JFP was initiated in the fall of 2007, with the Bureau of Reclamation acting as the lead agency for the first two phases. The control structure is currently under construction. This draft supplemental EIS analyzes excavation alternatives for the approach channel and other auxiliary spillway features upstream of the gated control structure. Three alternatives are considered: a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), use of a cutoff wall during excavation (Alternative 2), and the use of a cofferdam during excavation (Alternative 3). The primary and permanent structures proposed under both build alternatives consist of the 1,100 foot long excavated approach channel and a spur dike. A transload facility would be needed for mobilization and demobilization of marine equipment, dredge spoil off-loading from barges to trucks, marine equipment fuel and explosives transfer to support barges, equipment maintenance, and marine crew deployment. A combination of ripping and blasting would be required to facilitate rock excavation. As sufficient material is removed, the approach channel slab and concrete walls would be installed. Alternative 2 is the preferred plan for excavation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new auxiliary spillway will address the need to safely pass part of or the entire probable maximum flood event. Increasing the discharge capability and increasing storage will potentially achieve the goal of greater than 200-year flood protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would result in permanent adverse impacts to 11.5 acres of waters of the United States, temporary impacts to 88.5 acres of open water, and loss of 15.8 acres of habitat. Risks to water quality include significant turbidity, mobilization of existing sediment contaminants, and chemical, gas and oil introduction into the reservoir. Turbity and blasting could have sublethal and lethal effects on individual fish. Construction would increase noise levels, affecting local recreationists and adjacent residents. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2004, Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53), and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 07-0156D, Volume 31, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120239, Draft Supplemental EIS--323 pages, Appendices--352 pages, July 20, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Barges KW - Dams KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Flood Control KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Water Quality KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - American River KW - California KW - Folsom Reservoir KW - Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Project Authorization KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1178585087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FOLSOM+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT+APPROACH+CHANNEL%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+AND+PLACER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2007%29.&rft.title=FOLSOM+DAM+MODIFICATION+PROJECT+APPROACH+CHANNEL%2C+SACRAMENTO%2C+EL+DORADO%2C+AND+PLACER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2007%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIG SOUTH FORK NATIONAL RIVER AND RECREATION AREA AND OBED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER NON-FEDERAL OIL AND GAS MANAGEMENT PLAN, KENTUCKY AND TENNESSEE. AN - 1178584879; 15431 AB - PURPOSE: A strategic plan for the regulation and management of non-federal oil and gas operations over the next 15 years in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (NRRA) and Obed Wild and Scenic River (WSR) is proposed. The NRRA encompasses 125,000 acres on the Cumberland Plateau in Tennessee and Kentucky, 70 highway miles northwest of Knoxville, Tennessee. The 5,056-acre Obed WSR in Morgan and Cumberland counties, Tennessee is 20 to 30 miles south and west of the Big South Fork NRRA. Currently, there are more than 300 oil and gas wells within the Big South Fork NRRA, although no new wells have been drilled since about 1990. Within the Obed WSR, oil and gas exploration is limited to directional drilling from outside the boundary. However, there are seven oil and gas wells in Obed WSR, including two plugged and abandoned wells. The National Park Service (NPS) does not have a comprehensive plan guiding oil and gas activities within the parks and many of the past and existing oil and gas operations in these NPS units are adversely impacting resources and values, human health and safety, and visitor use and experience. Also, many are not in compliance with federal and state regulations, most notably, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 9 Subpart B. Three alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative A (the No Action Alternative), the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would be limited in its ability to conduct inspections and would defer to the state to notify operators about compliance issues. Under Alternative B, the NPS would proactively pursue enforcement of the 9B regulations and provide clear communication with the public and operators about current legal and policy requirements. For current operations, the NPS would continue to work cooperatively with the state on enforcement, but would conduct increased inspections and identify sites that are found to be impacting, or threatening to impact, park resources beyond the operations area. The park would use the oil and gas management plan to share information with the public about regulatory requirements, to seek out operators to ensure information is communicated clearly and effectively, and to focus on implementation of the regulatory framework. A new management framework for completing compliance processes necessary for plugging and reclamation of wells would provide a method for evaluating the compliance needs for future site-specific projects. Priority sites for plugging and reclamation would be identified using criteria described in the plan. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would implement the same type of management described in Alternative B, and would designate special management areas (SMAs) to protect park resources and values in areas particularly susceptible to adverse impacts from oil and gas development. Operating stipulations would be applied in the SMAs to protect the resources and values of the park units unless other mitigation measures were specifically authorized in an approved plan of operations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A programmatic management plan would provide guidance to ensure that activities undertaken by owners and operators of private oil and gas rights, as well as activities undertaken by the NPS, are conducted in a manner that protects the resources, visitor use and experience, and human health and safety in the park units. Owners and operators of private oil and gas rights would be provided reasonable access for exploration, production, maintenance, and surface reclamation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Oil and gas development would continue to create negligible to moderate adverse impacts on soils, water resources, floodplains, wetlands, vegetation, and wildlife; but the chance of major adverse impacts would be reduced due to increased monitoring and inspections. Potential adverse socioeconomic impacts from implementation of the plan would be long-term and negligible. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120234, 732 pages, July 20, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 12-25 KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Reclamation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Wells KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Big South Fork River KW - Kentucky KW - Obed River KW - Tennessee KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1178584879?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.title=BIG+SOUTH+FORK+NATIONAL+RIVER+AND+RECREATION+AREA+AND+OBED+WILD+AND+SCENIC+RIVER+NON-FEDERAL+OIL+AND+GAS+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+KENTUCKY+AND+TENNESSEE.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Oneida, Tennessee; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-21 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1124734964; 15417 AB - PURPOSE: Expanded mining and mineral exploration activities on public lands at the existing Hycroft Mine in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management received a revised plan of operations from Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI) in April 2010 which includes the expansion of HRDIs existing precious metal mining operation and project boundary. The existing project boundary encompasses 8,858 acres of public and private land 55 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. The proposed expansion would add 5,895 acres to bring the total project area to 14,753 acres. Key issues include the potential for waste rock, heap leach or pit walls to produce acid rock drainage or heavy metals, and potential visual impacts to the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and the Black Rock Wilderness Area. This final EIS analyzes the proposed action and a No Action Alternative. The proposed project would expand the plan boundary and use of the entire project area for exploration; incorporate five rights-of-way; expand four existing open pits; backfill all or portions of three open pits; build a dispatch center and expand maintenance facilities; expand haul and secondary roads, waste rock facilities, and heap leach facilities; expand and construct equipment fueling areas; operate a portable crusher with conveyors at the south heap leach facility; construct, operate, and then close the south heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe process plant, and solution ponds; relocate a segment of the Seven Troughs Road to bypass the south heap leach facility; expand the existing refinery and the Brimstone Merrill-Crowe plant; construct storm water diversions, install culverts, and other storm water controls; close the existing landfill and construct a new landfill; drill one potable water well and one process water well; relocate the existing Brimstone substation, upgrade the existing Crofoot substation, and extend power lines to new process areas; construct growth media stockpiles; and reclaim the project consistent with the proposed reclamation plan. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with the inclusion of identified mitigation measures for cultural resources and impacts to golden eagle, burrowing owl, and bats in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed expansion would increase the mine life by12 years and employment by 337 mine personnel. Implementation is expected to result in the extraction and production of 2.5 million ounces of gold and 49.3 million ounces of silver. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 2,172 acres could accelerate soil erosion and would remove 46 acres of potential habitat for Crosby's buckwheat. Up to 441 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat associated with the open pit would not be reclaimed. The project would remove migratory bird and raptor habitat and destroy active bat hibernacula. Greater sage-grouse and burrowing owl individuals and habitat could be impacted, and a known location of a golden eagle nest may have to be removed. Emissions of particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide would be generated by numerous processes for the life of the project. Historic roads and routes would be closed and 21 sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places could be adversely impacted. The project would result in visual impacts to the Nobles and Applegate trails, as well as an additional 247 truck trips per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120220, 548 pages, July 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-W030-2011-0001-EIS KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Historic Sites KW - Landfills KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wells KW - Wildlife 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/1124734964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+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 - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 1124734954; 15414 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This final EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie 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, approximately 20.6 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area are currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, as described for the proposed action, but would exclude the unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. Alternative C is the No Action Alternative. Alternative A for the CPA 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 WPA and 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120217, Volume I--710 pages, Volume II--714 pages, Volume III--663 pages, July 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-019 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 - 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/1124734954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2011). AN - 1124734944; 15411 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. In November 2011, the National Park Service released a final EIS with a preferred alternative applicable only for the 2011/2012 winter season, for which the park would operate under the same interim rules and restrictions in place during the previous two seasons. On March 15, 2012, no motorized OSV use can be allowed in the park unless a new regulation is issued. This draft supplemental EIS contains updated data for air and sound emissions, and considers four management alternatives. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), no OSVs would be allowed in the park. Alternative 2 would allow OSV use at the same levels (318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day) and with the same restrictions as have been in place the past three winter seasons. Alternative 3 would transition to snowcoaches only over a three year period beginning in the 2017/2018 winter season. Under Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, OSV access would be managed by transportation events, with 110 total events each day. Up to 50 events would be allocated for snowmobiles and the remaining 60 for snowcoaches. A transportation event would initially equal one snowcoach or a group of, on average, seven snowmobiles travelling together within the park. This management strategy is based on the concept of comparability; that impacts to park resources and the visitor experience resulting from a snowcoach or a group of snowmobiles are comparable to each other. Alternative 4 would continue to require best available technology (BAT) for snowmobiles and would require snowcoaches to meet BAT standards by the 2017/2018 winter season. Also in the 2017/2018 season, maximum allowable air and sound emissions for snowmobiles would be reduced. If snowmobiles and snowcoaches can meet additional sound and air emissions standards beyond those required by the 2017/2018 BAT standards, the average seasonal size of a group of snowmobiles will be permitted to go from seven to eight, and snowcoaches could go from one to two per transportation event. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would establish a management framework that allows the public to experience the unique winter resources and values at Yellowstone National Park while ensuring resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120214, 508 pages, July 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1124734944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2011%29.&rft.title=YELLOWSTONE+NATIONAL+PARK+DRAFT+WINTER+USE+PLAN%2C+IDAHO%2C+MONTANA%2C+AND+WYOMING+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+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, National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 1124734916; 15419 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. The program would schedule one sale with two whaling deferrals (near Barrow and Kaktovik) in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area off of South-Central Alaska. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this final programmatic EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. Potential Arctic lease sales would include special mitigation conditions to protect subsistence use. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would impact benthic habitats and invertebrates. Operations could result in localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120222, 2,057 pages, July 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-030 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1124734916?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-06&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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: July 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RIO PUERCO RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BERNALILLO, CIBOLA, MCKINLEY, SANDOVAL, TORRANCE, AND VALENCIA COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1124734913; 15409 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Rio Puerco Field Office (RPFO), in Bernalillo, Cibola, McKinley, Sandoval, Torrance, and Valencia, counties, New Mexico are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) comprises 9.5 million acres of public, state, and private lands, of which 744,387 surface acres and 3.6 million acres of federal subsurface minerals are administered by the BLM. Interstate 40 (I-40) crosses the planning area east-west, and I-25 runs north-south. These highways intersect each other in Albuquerque. Other cities and towns from east to west on I-40 include Moriarty, Grants, Milan and Gallup. The I-25 cities and towns from south to north are Belen, Los Lunas, and Bernalillo. These highways also cross American Indian pueblo and tribal lands as they pass through the planning area. Approximately 13 percent of New Mexicos lands make up the planning area and are home to approximately 45 percent of New Mexicos population. Sandoval County public lands exist in noncontiguous blocks of ownership (known as a checkerboard pattern), creating some access and management concerns. Key issues identified during scoping are travel management, recreation and visitor services, mineral resources, special designations, visual resource management, and lands and realty. Four alternatives are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), the RPFO would manage 112,786 acres as areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs). Alternative B would emphasize conservation by maximizing efforts to protect, maintain, restore, or improve components of the ecosystem using natural processes. This would be achieved primarily through increased management emphasis on the use of special designations to address unique or critical resource concerns while allowing for resource uses in areas without special designations. Under Alternative B, 112,786 acres would be managed as ACECs, 37,514 acres would be managed to protect wilderness characteristics, and livestock grazing would be prohibited in all proposed special designations. Alternative C is the preferred alternative and would balance the protection, restoration, and enhancement of natural and cultural values with resource use and development. Measures to protect sensitive resources would be implemented, but they would be less restrictive than those proposed under Alternative B. ACECs would encompass 137,029 acres, 26,110 acres would have wilderness characteristics protected, and prescribed livestock grazing would be applied on BLM lands in the planning area, including special designations where protected resource values would be compatible with livestock grazing. Alternative D would emphasize resource uses and commodity production with the least constraints. Livestock grazing on BLM lands within the planning area would be maximized by reinstating suspended animal unit months where applicable, and using year-long and seasonal grazing to maximize flexibility in management. In addition, ACEC acreage would be reduced to 44,049 acres and areas open to fuelwood harvesting would be increased. Under all alternatives, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail would be classified as a 10,996-acre special recreation management area, and six areas would be classified as extensive recreation management areas (317,565 acres). The RPFO is deferring the development of a travel management plan and designation of routes until after the RMP is complete. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would replace the 1986 RMP and subsequent amendments, and guide the management of public lands administered by the RPFO into the future. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife including special status species. Traditional cultural properties and archaeological sites could be affected. Impacts to air quality and climate would primarily result from fire management, mineral resource development, and travel management decisions. The designation of renewable energy development avoidance and exclusion areas on BLM lands would have a cumulative impact of reducing the potential for renewable energy development within New Mexico. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120212, Draft EIS--665 pages, Appendices--158 pages, July 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-10-1610 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1124734913?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-07-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RIO+PUERCO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BERNALILLO%2C+CIBOLA%2C+MCKINLEY%2C+SANDOVAL%2C+TORRANCE%2C+AND+VALENCIA+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=RIO+PUERCO+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BERNALILLO%2C+CIBOLA%2C+MCKINLEY%2C+SANDOVAL%2C+TORRANCE%2C+AND+VALENCIA+COUNTIES%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, Albuquerque, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: July 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-11-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DENALI NATIONAL PARK AND PRESERVE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 1111854726; 15404 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for managing vehicle use for the next 15 to 20 years along the 92-mile-long Park Road at Denali National Park and Preserve in Alaska are proposed. The Denali Park Road is the only road that winds into the six-million-acre wilderness landscape. The present approach for managing vehicles is based on the parks 1986 General Management Plan, which established an allowable seasonal limit of 10,512 vehicles on Park Road past mile 15 from approximately Memorial Day to a week after Labor Day. The consistent growth in tourism that Alaska has experienced over the last decade has resulted in increasing visitation to Denali National Park and Preserve and the need for the Denali Vehicle Management Plan. In addition to the seasonal limit, other factors to be considered in order to adequately protect park resources and provide for a high quality visitor experience include: visitor perceptions of crowding at wildlife stops and rest stops; interactions between busses and wildlife; and wildlife movements in the Park Road corridor. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative ( Alternative A), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative B would optimize access by promoting maximized seating on all transit and tour vehicles to offer the largest number of visitors the opportunity to travel the Park Road. Alternative C would maximize visitor opportunities by promoting a variety of opportunities that range from brief experiences in the parks entrance area, to short and long visits along segments of the Park Road, to multiday experiences in the parks backcountry. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine a maximum use level for Denali Park Road with indicators and standards to protect visitor experience and park resources. To fully optimize the transportation system, a majority of seats on both transit and tour buses would be filled by prebooking visitors. In addition to managing for desired conditions, the maximum level of vehicle use on the restricted section of the Park Road would be 160 vehicles per 24-hour period. A new management subzone, west of Eielson Visitor Center to Wonder Lake, would be managed for the lowest traffic volume on the Park Road and significant growth beyond the current condition would not be allowed. For the restricted section of the Park Road, which extends from Savage River to Wonder Lake, the following indicators would be monitored annually: sheep gap spacing, night time traffic levels, large vehicles, vehicles at a wildlife stop, vehicles in a viewscape, and wait time for hiker vehicles at rest areas and the Eielson visitor center. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would guide management to provide a high quality experience for visitors; protect wilderness resources and values, scenic values, wildlife, and other park resources; and maintain the unique character of the Park Road. Under both action alternatives, vehicle use would be adaptively managed to achieve specific desired conditions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The wilderness character of the park may be affected by the volume, timing, and types of vehicle use. Dall sheep, grizzly bear, caribou, moose, gray wolf and other wildlife species and habitat could be impacted. Changes to administrative use of the road, monitoring, and changes to education/interpretation would affect park operations, management and costs. The social and economic conditions of the local gateway and regional communities could be influenced. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120206, 428 pages, June 29, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - Wilderness Act of 1964, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1111854726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=DENALI+NATIONAL+PARK+AND+PRESERVE+VEHICLE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denali Park, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHOKECHERRY AND SIERRA MADRE WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 1111854724; 15402 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project on two sites south of Rawlins in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Power Company of Wyoming, LLC (PCW) filed a wind site testing and monitoring application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the lands encompassing a portion of the Overland Trail Ranch, which is owned and managed by The Overland Trail Cattle Company, LLC (TOTCO). The BLM Rawlins Field Office administers the public lands within the application area. The Overland Trail Ranch consists of approximately 315,000 acres in a checkerboard configuration of public, private, and state land primarily used by TOTCO for livestock grazing. Both PCW and TOTCO are wholly owned affiliates of The Anschutz Corporation. Most, but not all, of the privately held lands are owned by TOTCO. The proposed project would consist of two wind farm sites located near each other within the wind site testing and monitoring application area totaling 229,076 acres of public, private, and state land; however, not all of this land would be used for, or disturbed by, the project. The CCSM project, which would comprise the largest commercial wind generation facility in North America, is not in conformance with the visual resource management direction provided in the Rawlins Field Office Resource Management Plan and an amendment is required as a prerequisite to project approval. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 1R is the currently proposed action and would authorize wind development in PCWs application area within TOTCO ranch boundaries to accommodate a 2,000- to 3,000-megawatt (MW) wind farm consisting of 1,000 wind turbine generators (WTGs). Under Alternative 2, wind development would be authorized only above Township 18 North (T18N) to keep development primarily within the checkerboard landownership pattern. Alternative 3 would authorize wind development in the Chokecherry portion and only the area from the eastern half of T18N, Range 88 West to the east of the Sierra Madre portion of PCWs application area. Under Alternative 4, no placement of WTGs on public lands within either the Chokecherry site or Sierra Madre site would be authorized, but right-of-way (ROW) grants would be provided to PCW for the public lands that would allow development of wind energy facilities on the privately held lands. Along with the turbines, the project also proposes building access roads, underground electric gathering lines, an overhead transmission line, and substations to interconnect the generated power to the electric grid. The requested ROW grant is for a term of 30 years with the option to renew the grant and upgrade the wind facility, as necessary. The preferred alternative is Alternative 1R with a modification to prohibit development on 1,037 acres within the Sierra Madre site in order to protect grizzly bear habitat. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CCSM project would take advantage of significant potential in an area of high wind energy, address future needs for power from renewable energy sources, and benefit the local and state economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would impact water- and wind-erodible soils as well as habitat for mule deer, pronghorn, and elk. Alternative 1R would result in direct loss of 969 animal unit months (AUMs) of range resources and an additional loss of 2,000 AUMs due to dust deposition. Turbine operation would result in an estimated 6,300 bat collisions and 5,400 bird collisions annually. High volumes of construction traffic would have significant impact at Interstate 80 access ramps. Visibility of large-scale WTGs and other facilities from large portions of the analysis area would have impact at distances of up to 30 miles affecting the Overland Trail, the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, the North Platte River special recreation management area, and the Teton Reservoir recreation site. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120204, Final EIS--782 pages, Appendices--534 pages, June 29, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/WY/PL-12/022+2801 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Ranges KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Transportation KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1111854724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=CHOKECHERRY+AND+SIERRA+MADRE+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (VRM) PLAN AMENDMENT, CARBON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 1111854723; 15401 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan amendment that would establish new Visual Resource Management (VRM) class designations and address wind energy development in Carbon County, Wyoming is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field Office is considering the VRM amendment concurrently with the development of the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre (CCSM) Wind Energy Project EIS. A majority of the 229,077-acre CCSM wind site application area is designated as VRM Class III, but a portion of the Sierra Madre site is identified as VRM Class II. Wind energy development typically is not considered to be compatible with VRM Class I; VRM Class II within the foreground/middleground and background distance zones; and VRM Class III within the foreground/middleground zone. VRM Class IV provides for management activities that require major modification of the existing character of the landscape. The most prominent land use feature in the planning area is a large swath of land that is divided into a checkerboard pattern of ownership. The planning area encompasses 3.7 million acres and contains 1.2 million acres with high wind potential, 565,390 acres of areas with high and moderate potential for oil and gas, and the 5,670-acre Elk Mountain Forest. The decision area boundary was developed by reducing the nominally 30-mile distance zone from the CCSM Wind Energy Project that delineates the planning area by using the following features: the State Highway 789 designated overhead utility corridor as the western boundary, the Interstate 80 designated overhead utility and major transportation corridor as the northern boundary, the scenic quality rating unit encompassing Elk Mountain as the northeastern boundary, and the U.S. Forest Service boundaries and Wyoming state line to the east and south. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2 would emphasize resource development. Management activities would be allowed to dominate the view and remain the major focus of viewer attention. Alternative 3 would emphasize protection of resources and preservation of the existing character of the landscape. Management activities would be seen, but would not be allowed to attract the attention of the casual observer or dominate the landscape. Alternative 4 is the preferred alternative and would strive for a balance of opportunities to allow some modification while partially retaining the existing character of the landscape. Alternative 4 would protect visual settings in areas determined to contain Class A scenery with VRM Class II designations, including the Elk Mountain area with VRM Class II and III designations. This alternative would provide varying levels of protection and alteration of Class B scenery with VRM Class II, III, and IV designations. Although this alternative would allow for a higher degree of alteration of visual settings in the northern portion of the decision area, the visual setting in the checkerboard ownership areas and other fractured landownership patterns is influenced by uses on private and state lands beyond BLMs jurisdiction. VRM class designations will be considered and analyzed in a future plan review for the remainder of the Rawlins Field Office area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The VRM-targeted plan amendment would determine management actions for visual resources on public lands in the decision area and address the lack of conformance of the proposed CCSM Wind Energy Project with the existing VRM class designations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the decision area managed as VRM Class IV would increase from five percent (39,180 acres) to 57 percent (420,434 acres). Visual intrusions and high levels of landscape alteration that affect cultural resources and recreation areas would increase compared to current management. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120203, 103 pages, June 29, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Forests KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1111854723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=VISUAL+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+%28VRM%29+PLAN+AMENDMENT%2C+CARBON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Rawlins, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS REGIONAL AIRPORT, AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN IMPROVEMENTS, TOWN OF TAOS, TAOS COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1111854721; 15400 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of Taos Regional Airport in Taos County, New Mexico is proposed. The 814.5-acre airport is owned by the Town of Taos and is used by a variety of cabin-class, general aviation jet aircraft. At present, the airport does not provide all-weather wind coverage to safely accommodate existing and proposed aviation demand. The area of potential effect for the expansion project is a National Register-eligible historic district comprising Taos Pueblo, 80 identified traditional cultural properties, and other unidentified traditional cultural properties. The proposed airfield improvements include: a new 8,600-foot by 100-foot runway and full length parallel taxiway which would accommodate aircraft weighing up to 60,000 pounds; runway lighting; navigational aids for Category I Instrument Landing System capabilities; runway safety areas and protection zones, and associated grading, drainage, and utility relocations; and a remote transmitter/receiver installed on airport property to allow aircraft operators to communicate with air transport control in Albuquerque. Runway 4/22 would be shortened by 420 feet to the northeast to preclude the penetration of the relocated Runway 4 threshold siting surface by aircraft operating on the new runway/taxiway system and to keep the existing non-precision runway protection zone entirely on airport property. A new 3,200-foot-long airport access road would be constructed and the existing access road would be extended by 2,800 feet. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2C is the airport layout plan proposed by the Town of Taos. Alternative 2D, which is the preferred alternative, would shift the proposed new runway 798 feet to the southeast to minimize floodplain impacts. Alternative 3 would involve construction of a new runway with a different directional orientation. If approved, the expansion would be completed in 2015 and would generate 2,665 additional annual aircraft operations at Taos Regional Airport. In 2020, the number of annual aircraft operations would increase by 3,890 to 19,148 total operations when compared to the No Action Alternative. This equates to seven additional daily operations in 2015 and 11 additional daily operations in 2020. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would enhance the safety and utility of the airport by providing a runway that allows for year-round wind coverage and that is of sufficient length to improve payload capacities of the existing and forecast design aircraft serving the Town of Taos. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would displace 465 acres of sagebrush and arroyo vegetative communities and encroach on 2.7 acres of 100-year floodplain. Aircraft noise would increase significantly, potentially affecting the Taos Pueblo World Heritage site. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0472D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 120202, Final EIS--506 pages, Appendices--2,306 pages, June 29, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Airports KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Cultural Resources KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Indian Reservations KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Safety Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Districts KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Districts UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1111854721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+AIRPORT+LAYOUT+PLAN+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+TOWN+OF+TAOS%2C+TAOS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+REGIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+AIRPORT+LAYOUT+PLAN+IMPROVEMENTS%2C+TOWN+OF+TAOS%2C+TAOS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Fort Worth, Texas; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MENOMINEE CASINO-HOTEL, 223-ACRE FEE-TO-TRUST TRANSFER AND CASINO PROJECT, KENOSHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 1111854714; 15407 AB - PURPOSE: The transfer of a 223-acre parcel in Kenosha, Wisconsin into federal trust and approval of a gaming management contract for a tribal casino-hotel development at the transferred site are proposed. The property would be taken into federal trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while the National Indian Gaming Commission would approve the contract with the applicant, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. The proposed project is located at the site of the existing Dairyland Greyhound Park which has been closed for two years. Five alternatives are considered in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative A) would provide for the transfer of land and establishment of the gaming contract, allowing the development of the casino-hotel complex, while maintaining the existing greyhound racetrack, structure, concourse, and kennel facilities. Regional access to the complex would continue to be provided by Interstate 94. State Trunk Highway 158 (52nd Street) would provide primary local access to the casino and 60th Street would provide emergency access. Under Alternative B, the property would be placed into trust and the facilitys current configuration would be maintained and operated as-is, with the addition of slot machines and table games inside the existing clubhouse. Alternative C would involve expansion of the existing Menominee Casino-Bingo-Hotel facilities on the Menominee Reservation in Keshena, Wisconsin. Alternative D would include placing the 223-acre site into trust status and construction of a hotel-conference center and recreational development, in addition to the potential renewed operation of the existing clubhouse, racetrack, and kennels. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative E), the 223-acre property would not be placed into trust and land use jurisdiction of the property would remain with the City of Kenosha. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The enterprise development would improve the socioeconomic status of the Tribe by providing a new revenue source that could be used to build a strong tribal government; improve existing tribal housing; provide new tribal housing; and fund a variety of social, governmental, administrative, educational, health and welfare services to improve the quality of life of tribal members. The proposed action would generate an estimated $505 million in revenue annually after full build-out in 2019. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in the destruction of vegetation and disturbance of soils and associated wildlife habitat. New competition would affect other tribal gaming operations in the region, particularly the Forrest County Potawatomi casino in Milwaukee. Increased local and regional traffic levels would impact transportation facilities and air quality. Additional pressure would be placed on local services and infrastructure. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 06-0036D, Volume 30, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120210, Final EIS--502 pages, Appendices--1,670 pages, Comments and Responses--1,526 pages, June 29, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Hotels KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1111854714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+KENOSHA+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=MENOMINEE+CASINO-HOTEL%2C+223-ACRE+FEE-TO-TRUST+TRANSFER+AND+CASINO+PROJECT%2C+KENOSHA+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Spelling, Minnesota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 29, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-10-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LOWER SONORAN AND SONORAN DESERT NATIONAL MONUMENT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MARICOPA, PINAL, PIMA, GILA, AND YUMA COUNTIES, ARIZONA. AN - 1074615928; 15384 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the management of 1.4 million acres of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in south-central Arizona are proposed. The planning area covered by the Resource Management Plan (RMP) includes parts of Maricopa, Pinal, Pima, Gila, and Yuma counties and comprises 8.9 million acres of public, state, and private lands. On January 17, 2001, a portion of the planning area was designated by presidential proclamation as the Sonoran Desert National Monument (SDNM) to protect an array of scientific, biological, archaeological, geological, cultural, and historical objects. BLM-administered lands include 486,400 surface acres and 461,000 subsurface acres within the SDNM, referred to as the SDNM decision area. In the areas outside of the SDNM, referred to as the Lower Sonoran decision area, the BLM manages 930,200 surface acres and 1.1 million subsurface acres. Key issues include travel management, lands with wilderness characteristics, habitat management, livestock grazing, recreation management, and energy development. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this final EIS. Alternative B would emphasize recreation and resource development. Alternative C would attempt to balance resource protection with human use and influence by providing opportunities for a variety of uses, while placing an emphasis on resource protection and conservation. Alternative D would place the greatest emphasis on resource protection/conservation, and opportunities to visit remote settings and experience non-motorized, primitive recreation. Alternative E, which is the preferred alternative, incorporates elements from each of the other alternatives to provide a balance between human use and protection of sensitive resources. For the Lower Sonoran decision area, management prescriptions would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when compatible with resource protection; manage or reconstruct existing wildlife waters, and build new ones, to sustain or enhance wildlife populations; designate 255,700 acres as wildlife habitat area; designate three new areas of critical environmental concern; allocate one Anza National Historical Trail (NHT) management area; protect wilderness characteristics on 91,200 acres; reduce motor vehicle access through moderate route closures and seasonal limitations; designate eight one-mile-wide utility corridors; and allocate grazing allotments as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral, as appropriate. For the SDNM decision area, management prescriptions would: allow cultural and heritage tourism and scientific research when compatible with resource protection; build new wildlife waters when needed to maintain or enhance wildlife resources; allocate the Lower Gila Historic Trail special cultural resource management area to protect a number of historic trails; allocate one Anza NHT management area; protect wilderness characteristics on 107,800 acres in the Sand Tank Mountains area; allocate grazing allotments north of Interstate 8 (I-8) as perennial, perennial-ephemeral, or ephemeral; modestly reduce motor vehicle access; provide increased non-motorized recreation opportunities; prohibit recreational target shooting, paintball, and wood collecting for campfires; and allocate Highway 238 and I-8 as scenic byways. No utility corridors would be designated and new land use authorizations would not be allowed within the SDNM. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed RMP would respond to the establishment of the SDNM and consolidate three previous RMPs and five plan amendments which contain obsolete planning boundaries and management decisions. The preferred alternative would implement a unique prescription for managing the decision areas while providing long-term protection and resource conservation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities such as grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction, displacement, puddling, and rutting of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact ranch businesses and the mining industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120186, Final EIS--1,507 pages and maps, Appendices--480 pages, June 15, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/005 KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Monuments KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Juan Bautista de Anza National Historical Trail KW - Sonoran Desert KW - Sonoran Desert National Monument KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1074615928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=LOWER+SONORAN+AND+SONORAN+DESERT+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+MARICOPA%2C+PINAL%2C+PIMA%2C+GILA%2C+AND+YUMA+COUNTIES%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix, Arizona; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 15, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALAMOGORDO REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY PROJECT, OTERO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1074615651; 15380 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a groundwater development and conveyance system to provide 4,000 acre-feet per year (afy) of water to the City of Alamogordo, south-central New Mexico is proposed. The City has identified a projected water demand of 10,842 afy through 2045 and a need to obtain 3,398 afy in additional water supplies. The Alamogordo Regional Water Supply Project would obtain unappropriated brackish groundwater from the Snake Tank well field by constructing and operating 10 groundwater wells, installing water transmission lines to Alamogordo, and constructing a desalination facility and a booster pump station in Alamogordo to treat the brackish groundwater to drinking water standards. The project would be located on federal, state, and private lands, including land and rights-of-way (ROWs) managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the southeastern portion of the Tularosa Basin in Otero County. This ROW would allow the City to develop the water rights granted by the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer. Key issues include water provision for projected growth in the region, proximity of proposed wells to the Village of Tularosa and residential wells, groundwater drawdown, brackish water intrusion, potential effects on irrigation ditches and surface water, potential effects on ranching and agriculture, and monitoring measures. This final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the proposed action (Alternative B). Under the proposed action, the City would use its existing reliable water sources (7,444 afy); supplement those sources with the brackish groundwater produced at the Snake Tank well field; and purchase/lease additional bulk water or water rights from other sources to meet its projected demand. Up to 10 groundwater wells would be drilled on 20 acres of land administered by the BLM to produce brackish water from the Hueco-Tularosa aquifer. Monitoring would include measurements recorded in January and July of each year for groundwater levels and water quality. Access to the wells would be from Snake Tank Road, east of US 54 and 13 miles north of Tularosa. The well sites and a 50-foot ROW for collector lines would total 53.9 acres. Water produced from the wells would be delivered to the desalination treatment facility through 32.5 miles of high-density polyethylene or polyvinyl chloride pipes. The desalination facility would eventually have a capacity of producing five million gallons per day of potable water, but would be brought online in phases as Alamogordo grows. Waste concentrate would be handled through the use of an evaporation pond until production is sufficient to warrant the construction and use of planned injection wells. Phase 1 and phase 2 capital costs are estimated in 2010 dollars at $19.8 million and $3.1 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The provision of public land for well siting and conveyance of groundwater would allow development of the 4,000 afy of water rights granted to the City of Alamogordo and would help meet projected 2045 demand for potable water while reducing dependence on surface water. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cause temporary disturbance of 260 acres of soil, increased potential for wind and water erosion, temporary disturbance of 111 acres of vegetation, permanent loss of 69.5 acres of vegetation, and increased potential for spread of noxious weeds. Groundwater table drawdown by a few feet to more than 100 feet would create increased potential for land subsidence and potential for drying out of groundwater wells near the Snake Tank well field. The purchase and lease of up to 198 afy of water rights could fallow up to 79.2 acres of agricultural land. Two properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0572D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120182, Final EIS--224 pages, Appendices-- 736 pages, June 15, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-07-1793 KW - Farm Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pipelines KW - Salinity KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water (Potable) KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Resources Surveys KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Water Treatment KW - Wells KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act of 1992, Funding UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1074615651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALAMOGORDO+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+OTERO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=ALAMOGORDO+REGIONAL+WATER+SUPPLY+PROJECT%2C+OTERO+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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 15, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LYNN LAKE COAL LEASE, WAYNE COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA (COAL LEASE APPLICATIONS WVES-50556 AND WVES-50560). AN - 1039879645; 15370 AB - PURPOSE: The competitive leasing of federal coal underlying nine tracts encompassing 13,093 acres within the East Lynn Lake Project in southeastern Wayne County, West Virginia is proposed. The lake project is operated under the authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the purposes of flood control, water quality, fish population and habitat management, and recreation. Argus Energy WV, LLC and Rockspring Development, Inc. submitted two leases-by-application (LBAs) to the Bureau of Land Management requesting access to the federal coal estate in the Coalburg/Winifrede seam, part of the Williamson Coal Field on the Appalachian Plateau. The proposed lease tracts are located in a rural, mountainous, and predominantly forested area 20 miles south of Huntington and six air miles southeast of the town of Wayne, West Virginia. Numerous small intermittent and perennial streams originate in the area and flow northward toward the Ohio River. If the proposed action is approved, and if the applicants win the competitive bidding process for the federal coal leases, they would use existing facilities and personnel to mine the federal coal lying under the proposed lease tracts adjacent to the East Lynn Lake reservoir. Mining of the federal coal would effectively extend the life of Rocksprings Camp Creek Mine by about 10 years, and the lives of Arguss currently inactive No. 3 Mine and currently active No. 8 Mine by about 15 years. Key issues include those related to geologic, water, soil, vegetation, cultural, and socioeconomic resources, and the protection of existing designated uses related to the lake project. Under the reasonably foreseeable development scenario, granting of the LBAs would result in the removal, by room-and-pillar mining methods, of 76 million in-place tons of coal, providing 26.3 million clean recoverable tons of coal. Approximately half of the federal coal would be left in place to form pillars supporting the roofs of the mines to prevent subsidence. All disturbed land would be reclaimed following closure of the mines. This final EIS considers the proposed action, which is the preferred alternative, and a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Granting the leases would extend the mine life of the applicants' existing operations, sustain rural economies, and generate coal from federal estate to help satisfy the nation's energy needs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A maximum of 20 acres of surface disturbance is expected. Some minimal subsidence is likely, but impacts to water quality and quantity are not expected to be significant. Aquatic habitat and fish species in the lake and associated streams could be impacted by increased sediment loads or acid mine drainage. Existing minor, localized impacts resulting from noise and entrainment of dust would continue for the additional time period. Direct impacts to the recreational experience of visitors to East Lynn Lake are expected to be minimal. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0265D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120172, Final EIS--490 pages and maps, Appendices--432 pages, June 8, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: EIS-ES-030-2008-004 KW - Acids KW - Coal KW - Flood Hazard Surveys KW - Forests KW - Geologic Sites KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Lakes KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Noise KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - East Lynn Lake KW - West Virginia 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/1039879645?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS+WVES-50556+AND+WVES-50560%29.&rft.title=EAST+LYNN+LAKE+COAL+LEASE%2C+WAYNE+COUNTY%2C+WEST+VIRGINIA+%28COAL+LEASE+APPLICATIONS+WVES-50556+AND+WVES-50560%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Springfield, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 8, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-17 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Analysis of Parent Survey Data Addressing Part B SPP/APR Indicator #8--2012 AN - 1697498123; ED554211 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 2012 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 - 2012/06// PY - 2012 DA - June 2012 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/1697498123?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS, SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST, COOK, LAKE, ST. LOUIS, KOOCHICHING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 1039030587; 15368 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of prospecting permits to conduct mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities on federally owned minerals on the Superior National Forest (SNF) in northeastern Minnesota is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has received applications for 29 federal hardrock mineral prospecting permits and associated special use permits needed for access and road construction. Geologic information and core samples would be used to find, analyze, and map the presence and extent of minerals targeting metals such as copper, nickel, lead, zinc, cobalt, chromium, iron, titanium, platinum, palladium, silver, gold and other associated metals. A key issue is the potential impact of noise from prospecting activities on local landowners, summer home visitors, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) visitors, and winter use enthusiasts. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), SNF would consent to the BLM issuance of permits to DMC (USA) LLC, Twin Metals Minnesota LLC, Lehmann Exploration Management Inc., Encampment Resources LLC, and Prime Meridian Resources Inc. Under Alternative 3, the permittees would develop noise abatement methods that would decrease noise levels in the entire project area regardless of season or location. Noise abatement methods would be required to decrease noise at the source to 70 decibels at 20 feet from the drill rig. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would allow for drilling activities across the project area, but would require reduced target decibel levels at key receptors. Specifically, sound levels emitted by drilling would have to be reduced to a median level of 30 decibels at the boundary of the BWCAW and sound levels in excess of 35 decibels would have to be limited to no more than 10 percent of drilling time. Under Alternative 5, drilling exploration would be restricted to the period from November 1 through April 30. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative 4 for implementation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Consent would be in accordance with federal law if the exploration can be conducted in an environmentally sound manner and in compliance with the stipulations on the permits and operating plans. Anticipated activities for current permit applications would provide a minimum of 28 jobs and $1.5 million in labor income and a maximum of 108 jobs and $5.8 million in labor income on an average annual basis. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploration activities could result in up to 1,131 acres of disturbance across 38,704 acres of forest lands. Road construction, drill pad construction, and drilling activities could impact suitable habitat for sensitive plant species. Up to 922 acres or 384 miles of temporary road construction over 20 years could disturb wildlife, including lynx and wolves, and lead to increased mortality. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120170, Final EIS--336 pages, Additional Appendices--237 pages, Response to Public Comment--203 pages, Record of Decision--34 pages, June 1, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Superior National Forest 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/1039030587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duluth, Minnesota; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FEDERAL HARDROCK MINERAL PROSPECTING PERMITS, SUPERIOR NATIONAL FOREST, COOK, LAKE, ST. LOUIS, KOOCHICHING COUNTIES, MINNESOTA (ADOPTION OF THE FOREST SERVICE FINAL EIS OF MAY 2012). AN - 1039026999; 15369 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of prospecting permits to conduct mineral exploration drilling and geophysical activities on federally owned minerals on the Superior National Forest (SNF) in northeastern Minnesota is proposed. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has received applications for 29 federal hardrock mineral prospecting permits and associated special use permits needed for access and road construction. Geologic information and core samples would be used to find, analyze, and map the presence and extent of minerals targeting metals such as copper, nickel, lead, zinc, cobalt, chromium, iron, titanium, platinum, palladium, silver, gold and other associated metals. A key issue is the potential impact of noise from prospecting activities on local landowners, summer home visitors, Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (BWCAW) visitors, and winter use enthusiasts. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), SNF would consent to the BLM issuance of permits to DMC (USA) LLC, Twin Metals Minnesota LLC, Lehmann Exploration Management Inc., Encampment Resources LLC, and Prime Meridian Resources Inc. Under Alternative 3, the permittees would develop noise abatement methods that would decrease noise levels in the entire project area regardless of season or location. Noise abatement methods would be required to decrease noise at the source to 70 decibels at 20 feet from the drill rig. Alternative 4, which is the preferred alternative, would allow for drilling activities across the project area, but would require reduced target decibel levels at key receptors. Specifically, sound levels emitted by drilling would have to be reduced to a median level of 30 decibels at the boundary of the BWCAW and sound levels in excess of 35 decibels would have to be limited to no more than 10 percent of drilling time. Under Alternative 5, drilling exploration would be restricted to the period from November 1 through April 30. The BLM will sign a Record of Decision based on the adoption of this Forest Service final EIS. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Consent would be in accordance with federal law if the exploration can be conducted in an environmentally sound manner and in compliance with the stipulations on the permits and operating plans. Anticipated activities for current permit applications would provide a minimum of 28 jobs and $1.5 million in labor income and a maximum of 108 jobs and $5.8 million in labor income on an average annual basis. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploration activities could result in up to 1,131 acres of disturbance across 38,704 acres of forest lands. Road construction, drill pad construction, and drilling activities could impact suitable habitat for sensitive plant species. Up to 922 acres or 384 miles of temporary road construction over 20 years could disturb wildlife, including lynx and wolves, and lead to increased mortality. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120171, Final EIS--336 pages, Additional Appendices--237 pages, Response to Public Comment--203 pages, June 1, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Minnesota KW - Superior National Forest 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/1039026999?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-06-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28ADOPTION+OF+THE+FOREST+SERVICE+FINAL+EIS+OF+MAY+2012%29.&rft.title=FEDERAL+HARDROCK+MINERAL+PROSPECTING+PERMITS%2C+SUPERIOR+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+COOK%2C+LAKE%2C+ST.+LOUIS%2C+KOOCHICHING+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA+%28ADOPTION+OF+THE+FOREST+SERVICE+FINAL+EIS+OF+MAY+2012%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-09-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: June 1, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-09-12 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BELL ISLAND GEOTHERMAL LEASES, KETCHIKAN-MISTY FIORDS RANGER DISTRICT, TONGASS NATIONAL FOREST, KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH, ALASKA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF OCTOBER 2008). AN - 1034648029; 15354 AB - PURPOSE: A consent determination for the issuance of three pending geothermal leases on Bell Island and the adjacent mainland within the Ketchikan-Misty Fiords Ranger District of the Tongass National Forest, Ketchikan Gateway Borough, Alaska is proposed. The 2008 programmatic EIS (PEIS) for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States provides a framework to facilitate Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service efforts to analyze and expedite the leasing of BLM and National Forest System (NFS) lands with high potential for renewable geothermal resources in eleven western states and Alaska. Three of the backlogged lease areas analyzed in the PEIS encompass much of Bell Island and a portion of the Cleveland Peninsula, and together total 7,680 acres. With the exception of a private inholding within one of the lease areas (13.9 acres owned by the lease applicant), the lease areas are all on NFS lands and are located within the boundaries of the North Cleveland inventoried roadless area (IRA). The 2008 PEIS did not recognize the Bell Island leases as being within a roadless area. In addition, the social and economic study area was the Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan Borough and much of the Borough, including Bell Island, was annexed to the Ketchikan Gateway Borough in 2008. This draft supplemental EIS addresses the potential effects of any consent determination on the roadless area characteristics and values of the North Cleveland IRA. It also addresses the potential effects on subsistence and the social and economic conditions in the Ketchikan Gateway Borough, the area most likely to be affected by any development within the Bell Island leases. Two alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), the Forest Service would consent to the three pending geothermal leases, with appropriate stipulations. The reasonably forseeable development scenario describes the likely development of one 20 megawatt binary power plant, which is expected to result in approximately 10 acres of disturbance. The scenario does not include any estimates of disturbance resulting from construction of transmission lines, because the amount of disturbance would depend on where any future geothermal power plant is sited. Any disturbance resulting from power line construction if a geothermal power plant were sited would be in addition to the area estimated in the PEIS, and the effects of this disturbance would be considered and disclosed in subsequent project specific analyses. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Anticipated future actions associated with development of geothermal resources could contribute to increased employment opportunities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Exploration and utilization of geothermal resources would impact the natural features within the project area. Any change from undeveloped to developed land uses and increased human activity could affect the roadless characteristics of the area and subsistence uses. The non-discretionary Roadless Stipulation would help minimize these effects as no new roads could be developed or reconstructed within the boundaries of the IRA. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final PEIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, see 10-0248F, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120156, 58 pages, May 18, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Energy Sources KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Islands KW - Leasing KW - Roads KW - Subsistence KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Tongass National Forest KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1034648029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BELL+ISLAND+GEOTHERMAL+LEASES%2C+KETCHIKAN-MISTY+FIORDS+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2008%29.&rft.title=BELL+ISLAND+GEOTHERMAL+LEASES%2C+KETCHIKAN-MISTY+FIORDS+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+TONGASS+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+KETCHIKAN+GATEWAY+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+OCTOBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Ketchikan, Alaska; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 18, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-23 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCONE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 1034648020; 15352 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and UL Bend NWR, Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCone, Valley, and Phillips counties, Montana is proposed. Encompassing nearly 1.1 million acres, including Fort Peck Reservoir and UL Bend NWR, Charles M. Russell NWR is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States. Native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands provide habitat for Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds. More than 250,000 visitors participate in recreational activities every year. This final CCP and EIS evaluates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public use. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), habitat would continue to be managed in 65 units and maintained mostly through a fire suppression program with little use of prescribed fire. There would be continued emphasis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water development. The existing 670 miles of road would remain open and the Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles M. Russell NWR. Under Alternative B, the landscape would be managed in cooperation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife populations using both natural ecological processes such as fire and wildlife ungulate grazing, and responsible synthetic methods such as farming practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, but economic uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. About 106 miles of road would be closed. Alternative C would emphasize and promote maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and habitats would be protected with various management tools. Alternative D, which is the proposed action and preferred alternative, would emphasize ecological processes with active management to restore and maintain biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health. Once natural processes were restored, more passive approaches would be favored. The Fish and Wildlife Service would provide for quality wildlife-dependent public use and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to ecological processes. Initially, 21 miles of road would be permanently closed and 15 miles of road would be seasonally closed. Existing proposed wilderness units would be expanded or adjusted by a total of 19,942 acres in Alkali Creek, Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, East Seven Blackfoot, Mickey Butte, Sheep Creek, Wagon Coulee, and West Hell Creek. This would accommodate more public access in some areas and increase protection of wilderness values in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CCP would provide long-range guidance and management direction for refuge programs. Implementation of the proposed action would benefit upland and riparian habitat, result in long-term benefits to wildlife, and generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire would have short-term negligible impacts on air quality, visual resources, and soils. Under all alternatives, grazing would continue to impact soils and riparian habitat in some areas. Although the refuge currently supplies less than one percent of total animal unit months in the six-county area, management changes would affect individual livestock permittees. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12996 and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0428D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120154, Final EIS--501 pages and maps, Comments and Responses--465 pages, May 18, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Grazing KW - Hunting Management KW - Livestock KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge KW - Montana KW - UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge KW - UL Bend Wilderness KW - Executive Order 12996, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1034648020?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-05-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHARLES+M.+RUSSELL+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+AND+UL+BEND+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCONE%2C+VALLEY%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=CHARLES+M.+RUSSELL+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+AND+UL+BEND+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCONE%2C+VALLEY%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Lewistown, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 18, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-23 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BIRD HAZARD REDUCTION PROGRAM, JOHN F. KENNEDY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KINGS AND QUEENS COUNTY, NEW YORK (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1994). AN - 1032884258; 15334 AB - PURPOSE: An expansion of the bird hazard reduction program around the John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) in Queens County, New York is proposed. JFK airport is adjacent to the 9,155-acre Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge and bird strike hazards are a significant concern. Increasing gull strike problems resulted in the development of a 1994 EIS on bird strike management at JFK and bird strikes have decreased substantially since the implementation of the integrated bird hazard management program and on-airport shooting program. However, bird strikes continue and there have been 1,759 bird strikes involving 72 bird species at JFK over the period 1994 to 2009. This final supplemental EIS updates the 1994 final EIS and reviews six alternatives for reducing bird strikes. The No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) would continue the use of gull hazard management methods, on-airport nonlethal and lethal methods to reduce hazards to aircraft by all bird species, and technical advice and outreach to off-airport landowners and property managers regarding ways to reduce bird attractants. Under Alternative 2, existing efforts would be augmented by establishing a regular bird hazard monitoring program and improved reporting of nonlethal management actions. Also, agencies would be enabled to permit, recommend, and use nonlethal bird hazard management methods at off-airport sites to reduce bird hazards with the permission of the landowner/manager. This alternative also includes the use of nonlethal methods to reduce hazards to aircraft from birds at Gateway National Recreation Area (NRA), particularly at Rulers Bar Hassock, and the Pennsylvania and Fountain Avenue landfills. Alternative 3 would increase the duration of the annual supplemental on-airport shooting program from May through August to May through November. Personnel at the gull shooting stations would be authorized to use lethal methods to keep Canada geese, Atlantic brant, mute swans, double-crested cormorants, and ducks from entering JFK airspace. Supplemental on-airport shooting program personnel would also be authorized to take individuals from flocks of rock pigeons, European starlings, crows and blackbirds and to frighten remaining flock members from the site. This alternative could also include use of lethal rabbit and rodent control measures to reduce attractants for raptors. Alternative 4 would enable lethal bird hazard management projects at off-airport sites targeting Canada geese, mute swans, double-crested cormorants, blackbirds, crows, rock pigeons, and European starlings within a five-mile radius of JFK. This alternative would also include efforts to reduce the resident Canada Goose population within seven miles of the airport, including the use of lethal methods at Rulers Bar Hassock and Pennsylvania Avenue and Fountain Avenue landfills in Gateway NRA. Egg oiling/addling/puncturing could also be used on mute swan nests in Gateway NRA. Alternative 5 would involve relocation of the Jamaica Bay laughing gull colony. Alternative 6 is the proposed action and would combine the current program and the proposed supplements, thus enabling the use of the full range of bird hazard reduction techniques except efforts to reduce/relocate the laughing gull colony. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would minimize the risk of aircraft accidents resulting from birdstrikes. On-airport implementation of improved monitoring and data collection procedures should result in more targeted bird hazard management efforts and a more effective and efficient bird hazard management program. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Relocation of target birds could disrupt or displace nontarget bird species. Some nonlethal management methods such as prolonged harassment could have an adverse impact on vegetation and nontarget species, but impacts are expected to be minimal and short-term. Off-airport habitat management activities to reduce use of sites by target birds may have adverse impacts on species with similar habitat requirements. LEGAL MANDATES: Animal Damage Control Act of 1931 (7 U.S.C. 426 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 94-0044D, Volume 18, Number 1 and 94-0110F, Volume 18, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120136, 455 pages, May 11, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Air Transportation KW - Aircraft KW - Airports KW - Birds KW - Landfills KW - Pest Control KW - Preserves KW - Vegetation KW - Safety KW - Wildlife Management KW - Gateway National Recreation Area KW - Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge KW - John F. Kennedy International Airport KW - New York KW - Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1032884258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-05-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.title=BIRD+HAZARD+REDUCTION+PROGRAM%2C+JOHN+F.+KENNEDY+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT%2C+KINGS+AND+QUEENS+COUNTY%2C+NEW+YORK+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1994%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Castleton, New York; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-08-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 11, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-08-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAIWEE GEOTHERMAL LEASING AREA, INYO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1030201679; 15330 AB - PURPOSE: The opening of 22,805 acres of public lands to geothermal leasing and potential development of federally owned geothermal resources in the Haiwee Geothermal Leasing Area (HGLA) of southwestern Inyo County, California is proposed. The HGLA is located east of the Inyo National Forest, west of the China Lake Naval Weapons Station, and south of the South Haiwee Reservoir. The proposed action includes consideration of an amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan to classify the land in the HGLA as suitable or unsuitable for geothermal leasing. Standard stipulations from the final programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States (October 2008) are adopted for this EIS and proposed plan amendment. Three non-competitive lease applications are currently pending with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for approximately 4,460 acres of federal mineral estate within the proposed HGLA. In evaluating these applications a need was also identified to allocate a broader area of designated lands as closed, open, or open with constraints to geothermal leasing. Five alternatives are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative A, the entire HGLA would be deemed as suitable and open to geothermal exploration and leasing and the three pending geothermal lease applications would be authorized. Under Alternative B, the CDCA Plan would be amended to close the land within the HGLA to geothermal leasing and the pending geothermal applications would be denied. Alternative C, which is the preferred alternative, would involve opening the HGLA to geothermal exploration and development with additional specific stipulations and restrictions regarding surface occupancy and water use. The three pending geothermal lease applications encompass lands both within and outside of the sensitive resources area and would be authorized, subject to these limitations. Under Alternative D, specific acreage within the HGLA would be identified as open and available for geothermal development while other areas would be identified by stipulation as closed and unavailable for geothermal development in order to protect sensitive resources, largely Mojave ground squirrel core habitat. Alternative E is the No Action Alternative which would perpetuate the current management of the public lands within the HGLA. The CDCA Plan would not be amended and the pending applications for geothermal development would be denied. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would respond to policy directives and congressional direction regarding development of clean renewable energy to meet the increasing energy demands of the nation and reduce reliance on foreign energy imports. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Foreseeable development of geothermal leases would result in 384 acres of surface disturbance, and a local minor seismicity hazard associated with injection wells. Long-term loss of vegetation and habitat associated with roads and other surface disturbance could impact several special-status species such as the Mojave ground squirrel and the desert tortoise. Variable long-term impact from the presence of the power plants and associated infrastructure such as wells, access roads, and power lines would have low to high impacts on visual resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-581). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final programmatic EIS for Geothermal Leasing in the Western United States, see 10-0248F, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120132, Draft EIS--508 pages, Appendices--385 pages, May 4, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2012-005+1793 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Energy Sources KW - Geothermal Resources KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Land Use KW - Leasing KW - Roads KW - Seismology KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Project Authorization KW - Geothermal Steam Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030201679?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAIWEE+GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+INYO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=HAIWEE+GEOTHERMAL+LEASING+AREA%2C+INYO+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, Ridgecrest, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: May 4, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CELATOM MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HARNEY AND MALHEUR COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 1030201678; 15329 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of existing mining and exploratory drilling operations for mining diatomaceous earth at the Celatom Mine in Harney and Malheur counties, Oregon is proposed. Currently, EP Minerals, LLC operates three open-pit mines at the complex: Kelley Field on land administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Section 36 on State of Oregon land; and Beede Desert on private land. In addition, EP Minerals has support facilities including generators, water for dust abatement, fuel storage, and a camp for employees. The current mine plan of operations (MPO), approved in 1985, totals 1,634 acres. EP Minerals hauls stockpiled ore on a year-round basis approximately 60 miles to the mill/plant located on private land seven miles west of Vale, Oregon or to the Vines Hill Stockpile Area located on federal land administered by the BLM 14 miles west of Vale. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) are evaluated in this final EIS. The proposed action (Alternative 2) would include: 1) expanded mining operations at the Kelly Field mine operations area, Section 36 mine operations area, and Beede Desert mine operations area; 2) new mining operations at the Hidden Valley, North Kelly Field, Section 25, and Eagle mine operation areas; and 3) exploratory drilling, development drilling, sampling, trenching, and bulk sampling within the project boundary. The total proposed MPO area is 12,640 acres: 8,080 acres of BLM land, 1,680 acres of State of Oregon land, and 1,600 acres of split estate land. EP Minerals also proposes constructing two new roads outside of the mine operations areas on federal land: 1) the connector road between Hidden Valley and Section 36; and 2) the access road from Hidden Valley north to Eagle. Alternative 3 is the same as the proposed action but includes additional elements to facilitate other multiple uses of the area. These elements would include fenced mine areas, one additional access road, a locked gate, removal of a sediment basin, maintenance of an existing stock water pond, and installation of new stock watering ponds. Activities under the proposed action, including final reclamation, would be conducted over the course of approximately 50 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Approval of the MPO would allow for exploration and location of minerals within areas open to mining and having moderate to high mineral potential. End product would be made available for commercial uses including filtration, abrasives, and absorbent materials. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mine expansion would result in incremental disturbance of up to 1,394.5 acres of vegetation, removal of soils, impacts to greater sage-grouse habitat, and diminished wilderness characteristics on 4,338 acres in the Rocky Basin Wilderness Inventory Maintenance Unit. Mining activities would generate fugitive dust and emit air pollutants. Temporary disturbance in five grazing allotments would result in the loss of 185 animal unit months (AUMs) or 3.6 percent of the total AUMs that are currently managed. A total of 40 AUMs would be permanently lost. Exploration activities would have a temporary impact of 40 AUMs. The proposed action would result in a net loss of potential habitat, but would not contribute to a loss of viability for migratory bird species. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120131, 297 pages, May 4, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-OR-B050-2009-0037-EIS KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - General Mining Law of 1872, Compliance KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030201678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-05-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CELATOM+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+AND+MALHEUR+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=CELATOM+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HARNEY+AND+MALHEUR+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Hines, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: May 4, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BADLANDS NATIONAL PARK, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 1026670458; 15322 AB - PURPOSE: A general management plan to provide a framework for decision-making over the next 15 to 20 years for the South Unit of Badlands National Park in South Dakota is proposed. Badlands National Park, located 70 miles from Rapid City, is bordered by Buffalo Gap National Grassland, the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, and private ranches and farms. The entire park is comprised of 242,756 acres, 64,144 acres of which have been designated as wilderness. The 133,300-acre South Unit, which includes the Palmer Creek Unit, is a landscape of great historical and spiritual significance to the Oglala Sioux Tribe (OST) and is located in part within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Over the past decade, government-to-government consultation addressed the OST's interest in regaining management authority over tribal trust lands that now constitute the South Unit of Badlands National Park and a range of options were considered. The preferred management option would require congressional action to re-establish the South Unit as a distinct National Tribal Park managed by the OST. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are presented in this final EIS. Under Alternative B, a primary focus on expanded access and opportunities for visitors would include interpretation of natural and cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize preservation and protection of natural and cultural resources, and restoration of natural systems. Access would be limited primarily to the perimeter of the South Unit and visitor opportunities would include interpretation of natural, cultural, and paleontological resources. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would focus on restoration with expanded access and opportunities for visitors. Opportunities would promote understanding of Oglala history, culture, and land management principles through education and interpretation. Visitor activities would be focused in a developed front country area while the interior of the South Unit would be managed as backcountry. Natural resources management would focus on surveys and research to provide data to support future restoration, interpretation, and educational activities. Cultural resources management would focus on protection and preservation of historical, spiritual, and ceremonial sites and materials. In addition to the White River Contact Station, a visitor contact station would be developed on the west side of the South Unit. Approximately 90 percent of the lands within the park would be designated as natural area/recreation zone and would include primitive campgrounds, equestrian facilities, and access by unpaved pedestrian and horseback riding trails. Ten percent of the lands along the western and southern border of the park would be designated as development zone. Less than one percent of the park would be designated as a research zone, located in the north central part of the park. Total one-time costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $26.5 million. Annual operating costs are estimated at $3.1 million with 26 full-time employees. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Plan implementation would provide guidance for managing natural and cultural resources, clearly define resource conditions and visitor experience opportunities to be achieved, present a general approach for facilities and access, and ensure that decision-making is developed in consultation with an interested public. Designation of natural areas and recreation zones would improve the protection of wildlife populations and habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of facilities and visitor services would result in loss of vegetation. Introduction of bison to the South Unit could create a shift in composition and structure of native vegetation. Construction activities would alter soundscapes and new sources of outdoor light would be introduced. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0413D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120124, 370 pages and maps, April 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Research KW - Scenic Areas KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Badlands National Park KW - South Dakota KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026670458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BADLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BADLANDS+NATIONAL+PARK%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Interior, South Dakota; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHOENIX COPPER LEACH PROJECT, LANDER COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1026670452; 15321 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing Phoenix Mine in Lander County, Nevada to include copper leaching and beneficiation of copper oxide rock material that previously has been permitted for disposal is proposed. Newmont Mining Corporation has submitted amendments to its current gold mining plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management. The Phoenix Copper Leach Project would be located on both public and private lands in north-central Nevada and would include the generation and permanent placement of up to 158 million tons of spent ore and the recovery of approximately 245 million pounds of copper. Primary project components would include: 1) expansion of the existing plan of operations boundary; 2) development and operation of two copper heap leach facilities (HLFs); 3) construction of six new process ponds; 4) construction and operation of a copper solvent extraction-electrowinning facility; 5) designation of a new optional use area that could be developed as a copper heap leach facility and borrow area; 6) establishment of an additional clay borrow area; 7) development of new water monitoring wells; 8) construction of a new haul road, pipeline, and utility corridor; 9) development of a new production well; and 10) conversion of five process ponds to evaporation ponds during reclamation. The new production well would supply an estimated total of 23,000 acre-feet of groundwater for the copper heap leach process. In addition to the proposed action, this abbreviated final EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one action alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the currently classified waste rock that contains leach-grade copper would continue to be disposed of in one or more of the currently permitted waste rock facilities at the Phoenix Mine. Under the Reona Copper HLF Elimination Alternative, the second proposed HLF would not be developed and the 58 acres within the Reona heap leach pad area would continue to be utilized as a cyanide HLF, as currently permitted. The ore planned for the Reona Copper HLF would be mined as waste and not processed for copper leaching. Construction and operation is anticipated to begin in 2012. Active mining and processing would last approximately 24 years and reclamation activities are anticipated to extend a minimum of 25 years beyond the operational phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would allow profitable recovery of copper resources from materials currently considered as waste rock. To the extent practical, the proposed operations would utilize existing facilities and infrastructure at Newmonts currently permitted operations for the proposed project. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance would total 902 acres and result in the direct removal of herbaceous and woody vegetation and fragmentation of native plant communities. Disturbance associated with the reclaimed heap leach pads and use of borrow material would permanently alter the natural topographic and geomorphic features within the study area. The amount of land available for livestock grazing, dispersed recreation, and wildlife habitat would be reduced, but the loss would be minimal in the context of the overall area. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120123, 88 pages, April 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2011-0037-EIS KW - Borrow Pits KW - Chemicals KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Roads KW - Waste Disposal KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Nevada KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026670452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=PHOENIX+COPPER+LEACH+PROJECT%2C+LANDER+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INDIANA DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, LAKE, PORTER, AND LAPORTE COUNTIES, INDIANA. AN - 1026670155; 15317 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan for the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore in Lake, Porter, and LaPorte counties, Indiana is proposed. Management at Indiana Dunes to preserve and rehabilitate scenic, scientific, and historic landscapes has resulted is a mix of forest, shrub, and grassland that provides excellent habitat for white-tailed deer. The lack of adequate predation of deer and increased browse and habitat availability have resulted in low mortality rates. Deer density currently exceeds 100 animals per square mile in some areas and herd sizes of this magnitude can result in serious impacts on vegetation and wildlife populations dependent upon that vegetation. Four alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would perpetuate the current management regime of limited fencing, limited use of repellents, resource inventories and monitoring efforts. Alterative B would include all the actions under Alterative A, but would also incorporate non-lethal actions to reduce deer numbers. The additional actions would include the construction of additional enclosures, more extensive use of repellents in areas where fenced enclosures were not appropriate or feasible, and implementation of a phased program for nonsurgical reproductive control for does when a federally approved control agent becomes available. Alternative C would include current management actions and would also incorporate a direct reduction in deer herd size through sharpshooting and euthanasia, where appropriate. Alternative D is the preferred alternative and would include all current management actions as well as a combination of lethal and non-lethal actions. Reductions in herd size would be accomplished through sharpshooting, euthanasia, and nonsurgical reproductive control for does. The cost for implementation of the preferred alternative over a 15-year time horizon is estimated at $2.6 to $2.9 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would provide for a scientifically based system of checks and balances, such as monitoring and active management, to ensure that deer populations do not prevent the long-term conservation of sensitive plant and animal species. Degradation of lakeshore resources would be prevented as deer impact levels would remain balanced with other components of the ecosystem and other lakeshore values. The plan would facilitate public support, education, and appreciation for maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would allow recovery of vegetation currently being decimated by deer, thereby reducing the area of habitat available for mammals that prefer meadows and other open habitat. Some visitors would be dismayed by the shooting and euthanizing of deer. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0071D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120119, 492 pages and maps, April 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Biocontrol KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Pest Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Indiana KW - Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026670155?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+LAKE%2C+PORTER%2C+AND+LAPORTE+COUNTIES%2C+INDIANA.&rft.title=INDIANA+DUNES+NATIONAL+LAKESHORE+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+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 - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED TRAIN: MERCED TO FRESNO SECTION, MERCED, MADERA AND FRESNO COUNTIES,CALIFORNIA. AN - 1026670152; 15316 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 65-mile-long portion of the California High-Speed Train System (HST system) from Merced to Fresno is proposed. The plan for the overall HST system is to provide intercity service on more than 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. The Merced to Fresno section is a critical Phase 1 link connecting the Bay Area HST Section to the Fresno to Bakersfield, Bakersfield to Palmdale, and Palmdale to Los Angeles HST sections. The system would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour over a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment. This final EIS evaluates three HST north-south alignment alternatives and a No Project Alternative. The HST alternatives would include one station in Merced and one station in Fresno with an estimated trip time of 25 minutes between the stations. In 2035, for a high ridership scenario, the full system would see four trains per hour stop at Fresno in each direction at the peak, and six trains run through the city without stopping. At the off-peak, the same number of stops would be made, but the through trains would decrease to three per hour. At Merced, three trains would stop each hour per direction at the peak, with two running through. At the off-peak, both of the hourly trains would stop at Merced. The action alternatives are identical in the Merced and Fresno vicinities. Under the Union Pacific Railroad/State Route 99 (UPRR/SR 99) Alternative, the alignment would generally follow the UPRR and SR 99 transportation corridor, which connects the cities of Merced, Chowchilla, Madera, and Fresno. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Alternative alignment would follow the BNSF rail corridor, which travels east from Merced through Planada, Le Grand, and Madera Acres, and then veer back west to reconnect with the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment before entering the city of Fresno. The Hybrid Alternative would follow the UPRR/SR 99 Alternative alignment near Merced and the BNSF Alternative alignment near Madera Acres. All three alternatives include design options to avoid or minimize impacts and alternative wye (branch) connections to three east-west alignment options (along Avenue 24, Avenue 21, and SR 152) that would connect this section with the San Jose to Merced Section. The Merced to Fresno Section may include a heavy maintenance facility (HMF) to support delivery, testing, and commissioning on the networks first completed segment. Five alternative sites are considered for the facility which would encompass 150 acres to accommodate guideways, maintenance shops, parking, administrative offices, roadways, power substation, and storage areas. The Hybrid Alternative is the preferred alternative for the north-south connection and would include stations in downtown Merced between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street and in downtown Fresno at Mariposa Street. Due to influencing factors from adjacent sections, the identification of the preferred wye option and the HMF are being postponed until after the Fresno to Bakersfield Section and the San Jose to Merced Section environmental evaluation processes are completed. Project costs for the Hybrid Alternative are estimated in 2010 dollars at $3.8 to $4.8 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The HST system would provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail service with predictable and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Emissions of nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds would exceed significance thresholds during construction. Operation of the HMF could expose sensitive receptors to substantial toxic air contaminants. Depending on the wye connection, the Hybrid Alternative would displace 1,273 to 1,426 acres of farmland and require 1,100 to 1,139 property acquisitions, including 186 to 213 residential displacements and 212 to 226 business displacements. The project would impact habitat for special-status plant and animal species, sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, critical vernal pool habitat, wildlife movement corridors, and several preserves including the Great Valley Conservation Bank. Implementation of the Hybrid Alternative would result in up to 36 permanent road closures, potential impacts to historic properties, displacement impacts to community facilities, significant operational noise and vibration, and visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the final Tier 1 EISs for the California High-Speed Train System and the Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train System, see 06-0125F, Volume 30, Number 1 and 08-0332F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120118, Volume I--1,645 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--860 pages, Volume III--Alignment Plans, Volume IV--Comments and Responses, April 27, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Energy Consumption Assessments KW - Environmental Justice KW - Farmlands KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parks KW - Railroads KW - Railroad Structures KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Project Authorization KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1026670152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.title=CALIFORNIA+HIGH-SPEED+TRAIN%3A+MERCED+TO+FRESNO+SECTION%2C+MERCED%2C+MADERA+AND+FRESNO+COUNTIES%2CCALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-18 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - JOHN DAY BASIN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, GRANT, WHEELER, GILLIAM, SHERMAN, WASCO, JEFFERSON, UMATILLA, AND MORROW COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 1024347904; 15305 AB - PURPOSE: A revised resource management plan (RMP) for 456,000 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in central and eastern Oregon is proposed. The 5.5-million-acre study area lies in Grant, Wheeler, Gilliam, Sherman, Wasco, Jefferson, Umatilla, and Morrow counties. If approved, this RMP, to be known as the John Day Basin RMP, would replace the Baker, Two Rivers, and John Day RMPs. Approximately 77 percent of the BLM lands in the planning area fall within the Blue Mountain ecoregion, while the remaining 23 percent lie within the Columbia Plateau ecoregion. Vegetation is dominated by sagebrush shrubland, juniper woodland, dry and mesic mixed-conifer forest, grassland, and riparian communities. The existing RMPs are out-of-date with respect to changed circumstances and new information on socioeconomic and biologic conditions, new laws and regulations, changed user demands and activities, and changed acceptance of impacts by the public. Key issues include those related to landscape health, access and travel management, and wildlife and recreation resources associated with the 40,000 acres of newly acquired land near the North Fork John Day River (NFJDR). Five alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), the majority of forest lands would be managed to produce timber, all unplanned fire ignitions would be suppressed, and all grazing allotments, except for those on newly acquired lands along the NFJDR, would be open to livestock use. More than half of the BLM lands in the planning area would be designated as open to cross-country off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The preferred alternative (Alternative 2) would include: development of an interim transportation system and a process for developing a final transportation plan; a reduction in areas open to OHV use; synthesized management direction to achieve forest and upland health goals while providing for timber and forage production and wildfire prevention; management direction for the NFJDR lands that protects native fish, wildlife habitat, and public recreation; addition of an integrated strategy to address fish, water quality, and water quantity together; management protection of wilderness characteristics on 19,442 of the 35,457 acres identified as lands with wilderness characteristics; use of appropriate response rather than full suppression of all wildfires; a process for addressing permit/lease relinquishment for grazing allotments; and wild and scenic river suitability recommendation for 37 miles of the North Fork River. Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 are similar to Alternative 2 in most instances, but provide variation in the amount of roadway open for motorized travel, the number of areas open to OHV use, the amount of lands with wilderness characteristics protected, the number and classifications of river segments deemed suitable for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System, and the number of acres where livestock grazing is permitted. The action alternatives propose immediate designation of five new areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC), totaling 62,407 acres. This total includes the 1,153-acre expansion of the existing Horn Butte ACEC. POSITIVE IMPACTS: An updated RMP would allow appropriate uses of the BLM-administered lands and resources, while preventing undue damage to natural and recreational resources. The proposed ACECs would protect several sensitive plants, unique plant communities, and Washington ground squirrel habitat. The proposed 38,168-acre John Day Paleontological ACEC would complement the adjacent John Day Fossil Beds National Monument. Fuel treatments would reduce fire hazard (flame lengths) across BLM lands in the plan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Wildland fire, vehicle emissions, and fugitive dust would contribute to the degradation of air quality. However most of the emissions would be spread out over time and distance. Detrimental impacts to soils from wildfires and OHV use could cause erosion and loss of soil productivity. Proposed grazing allotment closures would reduce the economic productivity of the livestock sector in the area. Recreational OHV users would have less access to public routes and open areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0321D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120107, Final EIS--637 pages, Appendices--497 pages, April 20, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-OR-P040-2008-0089-EIS KW - Biologic Surveys KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Fire Prevention KW - Fires KW - Forests KW - Grazing KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Range Management KW - Ranges Surveys KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Rivers KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - North Fork John Day River KW - Oregon KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Oregon Land Exchange Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1024347904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=JOHN+DAY+BASIN+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+GRANT%2C+WHEELER%2C+GILLIAM%2C+SHERMAN%2C+WASCO%2C+JEFFERSON%2C+UMATILLA%2C+AND+MORROW+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Prineville, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-07-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-11 ER - TY - GEN T1 - U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education State Performance Plan. Submitted February 1, 2012 (Re-Submitted April 17, 2012). SPP Template-Part B AN - 1697503874; ED554021 AB - The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) funds schools located on 63 reservations in 23 states across the nation. Of the 183 schools, 59 are Bureau operated and 124 are tribally controlled. One-hundred and sixteen schools provide instructional programs, 55 provide instructional as well as boarding services and 12 peripheral dormitories provide only boarding services (these students attend the local public schools). Seven schools are Off Reservation Boarding Schools (ORBS) that provide both instructional and boarding facilities to students from many different states. The BIE is not a school system organized into districts as are the majority of the states. The 184 Bureau funded schools are organized under 22 Education Line Offices. The smallest line office has two schools providing academic services and one boarding facility where the students receive their academic services in a public school. The largest line office serves 16 schools. In the BIE, schools are also meeting the reporting requirements of the LEA. This difference is greater than just terminology in that the Education Line Officers do not have the same line authority over the LEA/schools in their line office as do district superintendents in the public school system. The definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) that all BIE funded schools will follow is that of the state in which the school is located (25 CFR 30.104). This has been an important factor in the development of the State Performance Plan (SPP) due to the fact that there are significant variances between states in expectations for many indicators such as graduation rates, achievement cut scores, attendance and others. With the need to align targets with ESEA reporting and the need to use common standards and measures wherever possible the SPP targets are often written in a format that allows adjustment for the expectations of the state in which the school is located. This 2012 revision of the State Performance Plan (SPP) aligns reporting with what is used to report under the ESEA. Y1 - 2012/04/17/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Apr 17 SP - 87 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - American Indian Reservations KW - Improvement Programs KW - Educational Trends KW - Accountability KW - Student Placement KW - Reading Programs KW - Transitional Programs KW - Federal Programs KW - Mathematics Activities KW - Educational Planning KW - Educational Resources KW - American Indian Education KW - Individualized Education Programs KW - Measurement Objectives KW - Graduation Rate KW - Performance Based Assessment KW - State Programs KW - Program Descriptions KW - Suspension KW - Educational Indicators KW - Dropout Rate KW - Student Participation KW - Language Arts KW - Benchmarking KW - Expulsion KW - Enrichment Activities KW - Strategic Planning UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697503874?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Annual Performance Report 2010-2011. Bureau of Indian Education. Submitted February 1, 2012. Revised Clarification, April 17, 2012. APR Template-Part B (4) AN - 1697500243; ED554196 AB - During SY 2010-2011, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) continued their efforts to improve the validity and reliability of data reporting. BIE data collections are dependent on school level entry (self-reporting) into the Native American Student Information System (NASIS) or into the Bureau's Annual Report from the schools. In addition, data is gathered and analyzed through the Special Education Integrated Monitoring Process (SEIMP) conducted annually. Through on site activities, annual conferences, and regularly scheduled webinar training sessions, schools have increased their level of understanding of data requirements and analysis. The BIE aligns reporting requirements with ESEA. The BIE oversees a total of 183 elementary and secondary schools, located on 64 reservations in 23 states. Of these, 59 are BIE-operated and 124 are Tribally-operated under BIE contracts or grants. The Bureau also funds or operates off-reservation boarding schools and peripheral dormitories near reservations for students attending public schools. The BIE provides funds to all schools however tribal groups have been granted or contracted to operate the tribally controlled schools. Both category of schools are treated the same relative to program management, monitoring and support. Y1 - 2012/04/17/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Apr 17 SP - 99 PB - Bureau of Indian Education. 1849 C Street NW Mail Stop 3609MIB, Washington, DC 20240. KW - ERIC, Resources in Education (RIE) KW - Elementary Secondary Education KW - High Schools KW - Secondary Education KW - Higher Education KW - Postsecondary Education KW - Preschool Education KW - Early Childhood Education KW - Elementary Education KW - Special Education KW - Employment KW - Student Placement KW - Dropouts KW - Tribally Controlled Education KW - Reading Achievement KW - Disabilities KW - Federal Programs KW - Enrollment KW - Compliance (Legal) KW - American Indian Education KW - Individualized Education Programs KW - Preschool Children KW - Graduation Rate KW - Boarding Schools KW - Elementary Schools KW - Suspension KW - Educational Indicators KW - Mathematics Achievement KW - Student Participation KW - Referral KW - Expulsion KW - Parent Participation KW - Student Evaluation KW - Disproportionate Representation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1697500243?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREATER NATURAL BUTTES AREA GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, UINTAH COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 1020954776; 15294 AB - PURPOSE: Further development of oil and gas resources within the 162,911-acre Greater Natural Buttes Project Area (GNBPA) in Uintah County, Utah is proposed. The GNBPA is partially developed with 1,562 existing vertical oil and gas wells and associated infrastructure including 23 compressor stations, access roads, water management facilities, pipelines, and power lines. The existing surface disturbance in the GNBPA is estimated at 7,766 acres or about 4.8 percent of the area. Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Onshore LP (KMG), a subsidiary of Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, proposes to conduct infill drilling to develop the oil and gas leases owned, at least in part, by KMG. Four alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, an additional 1,102 well pads with a surface disturbance of 4,702 acres would be developed as disclosed in existing decision documents. Under the proposed action, up to 3,675 new gas wells would be drilled from a maximum of 3,041 new well pads placed at up to 20-acre surface spacing. Total new surface disturbance would amount to 12,658 acres, or eight percent of the GNBPA. The Resource Protection Alternative is the preferred alternative and consists of the same number of wells as the proposed action (3,675 wells) but surface well pads would be limited to 40-acre spacing, resulting in a reduced number of approximately 1,484 well pads and a reduction in the surface disturbance of the project. If full recovery of the natural gas resource requires the drilling of wellbores at a downhole spacing of 20 acres or less, then directional drilling techniques would be required. The analysis of this alternative assumes 1,557 directionally drilled wellbores which would result in new surface disturbance estimated at 8,147 acres or about five percent of the GNBPA. Additionally, approximately 594 miles of new roads, 654 miles of buried pipelines, 458 miles of surface pipelines, seven miles of electrical power lines, two man-camps, two compressor stations, two water tank batteries, and 15 water injection facilities would be constructed. The Optimal Recovery Alternative would involve development of new well pads on 10-acre well spacing to maximize the recovery of hydrocarbon resources, thereby increasing project disturbance. Under all alternatives, additional wells would be drilled at an average rate of 358 wells per year over a period of 10 years or until the resource base is fully developed. The productive life of each well is estimated at 30 to 50 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would more fully develop the subsurface resources within the GNBPA and test directional drilling technologies to provide an additional domestic source of natural gas and oil to meet rising national energy demand. Potential energy resource recovery is estimated at 6.07 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 86.5 million barrels of oil condensates. Local economies would benefit from increased employment and expanded tax bases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Impacts to air quality would remain within standards under all alternatives except the Optimal Recovery Alternative, for which there is a potential to exceed the standard for ozone. New development would disturb soils and vegetation including 2,667 acres of preferred habitat for Uinta Basin hookless cactus. Cumulative impacts to pronghorn, mule deer, elk, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, bison, white-tailed prairie dog, and greater sage-grouse would be directly related to habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and animal displacement. Erosion and sedimentation, water depletions from the White and Green rivers, and potential leaks and spills of contaminants would impact fisheries resources. Up to 90 cultural resource sites and 7,740 acres of fossil yield areas could be disturbed. Existing grazing allotments would lose 655 active animal unit months. Development would disturb 32 acres within the White River Special Recreation Management Area, impact visual resources, and increase traffic volume by an estimated 20,948 vehicle miles. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0263D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120096, Final EIS--505 pages, Appendices--558 pages, April 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: FES 12-8 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Grazing KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - White River KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020954776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=GREATER+NATURAL+BUTTES+AREA+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+UINTAH+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 - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: April 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ATLANTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS) GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL ACTIVITIES, MID-ATLANTIC AND SOUTH ATLANTIC PLANNING AREAS. AN - 1020954774; 15292 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 draft 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120094, Draft EIS--550 pages, Appendices--922 pages, April 6, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-005 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 - Atlantic Coast KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Delaware KW - Florida KW - Georgia KW - Maryland KW - North Carolina KW - South Carolina KW - Virginia 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/1020954774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-04-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ATLANTIC+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28OCS%29+GEOLOGICAL+AND+GEOPHYSICAL+ACTIVITIES%2C+MID-ATLANTIC+AND+SOUTH+ATLANTIC+PLANNING+AREAS.&rft.title=ATLANTIC+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+%28OCS%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 - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: April 6, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-19 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 71 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027035117; 15289-1_0071 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 71 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027035117?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 70 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027035078; 15289-1_0070 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 70 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027035078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 68 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034994; 15289-1_0068 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 68 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 81 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034812; 15289-1_0081 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 81 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 75 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034716; 15289-1_0075 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 75 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 80 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034701; 15289-1_0080 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 80 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 74 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034683; 15289-1_0074 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 74 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034683?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 79 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034655; 15289-1_0079 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 79 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 73 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034642; 15289-1_0073 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 73 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 72 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034602; 15289-1_0072 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 72 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 78 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034587; 15289-1_0078 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 78 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 77 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034551; 15289-1_0077 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 77 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 58 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034082; 15289-1_0058 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 57 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034049; 15289-1_0057 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 56 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027034011; 15289-1_0056 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027034011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 54 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033985; 15289-1_0054 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 55 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033980; 15289-1_0055 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 53 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033946; 15289-1_0053 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 46 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033902; 15289-1_0046 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 30 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033882; 15289-1_0030 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033882?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 45 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033868; 15289-1_0045 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 29 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033856; 15289-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 44 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033840; 15289-1_0044 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 28 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033828; 15289-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033828?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 43 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033802; 15289-1_0043 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033802?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 27 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033796; 15289-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 67 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033685; 15289-1_0067 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033685?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 42 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033662; 15289-1_0042 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 66 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033656; 15289-1_0066 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 41 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033631; 15289-1_0041 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 65 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033627; 15289-1_0065 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033627?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 64 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033601; 15289-1_0064 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 40 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033595; 15289-1_0040 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 63 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033574; 15289-1_0063 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033574?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 51 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033571; 15289-1_0051 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 39 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033568; 15289-1_0039 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033568?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 62 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033550; 15289-1_0062 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 50 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033546; 15289-1_0050 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 22 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033540; 15289-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 61 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033527; 15289-1_0061 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 21 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033514; 15289-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 60 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033502; 15289-1_0060 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 20 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033492; 15289-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 59 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033479; 15289-1_0059 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 34 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033456; 15289-1_0034 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 26 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033455; 15289-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033455?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 25 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033436; 15289-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 33 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033430; 15289-1_0033 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 24 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033410; 15289-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033410?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 32 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033409; 15289-1_0032 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 23 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033396; 15289-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 38 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033392; 15289-1_0038 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 31 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033386; 15289-1_0031 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 37 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033372; 15289-1_0037 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 9 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033370; 15289-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 17 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033359; 15289-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033359?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 35 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033338; 15289-1_0035 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033338?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 16 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033336; 15289-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 15 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033319; 15289-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033319?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 12 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033296; 15289-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 11 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033277; 15289-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 10 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027033259; 15289-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 7 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027032899; 15289-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 5 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027032873; 15289-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032873?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 4 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027032853; 15289-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032853?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 8 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027032550; 15289-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 3 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027032479; 15289-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). [Part 2 of 81] T2 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1027032478; 15289-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 20 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032450; 15284-6_0020 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032449; 15284-6_0008 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 19 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032446; 15284-6_0019 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032444; 15284-6_0007 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 18 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032441; 15284-6_0018 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032440; 15284-6_0006 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 17 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032438; 15284-6_0017 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032434; 15284-6_0001 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032433; 15284-6_0005 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032433?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 16 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032432; 15284-6_0016 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032426; 15284-6_0004 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032421; 15284-6_0003 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 15 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032413; 15284-6_0015 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 14 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032409; 15284-6_0014 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 13 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032402; 15284-6_0013 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 12 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032400; 15284-6_0012 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032391; 15284-6_0010 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 21] T2 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1027032387; 15284-6_0009 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032387?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE - ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMACT STATEMENT OF JANUARY 2005). AN - 1020046036; 15289 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated activity plan (IAP) for the Bureau of Land Managements (BLMs) future administration of the nearly 23 million acres of federal lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A), North Slope Borough of Alaska, is proposed. Decisions to be made as part of this plan include oil and gas leasing availability, surface protections, wild and scenic river recommendations, and special area designations. The new IAP would supersede the current plans (the Northwest NPR-A IAP Record of Decision signed on January 22, 2004, and the Northeast NPR-A Supplement IAP Record of Decision signed on July 16, 2008) and may amend the 2008 Colville River Special Area Management Plan. One of the purposes of this new IAP is to provide an opportunity, subject to appropriate conditions, to construct necessary onshore infrastructure to transport oil and gas resources from offshore leases in the Chukchi Sea to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System and proposed gas pipelines. Four alternatives are considered in this draft supplemental EIS. Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would continue the management established in the current decisions for the Northwest NPR-A IAP, Northeast NPR-A supplemental IAP, and decisions made as part of the Colville River Special Area Management Plan. There are no current IAP decisions effective for the southern portion of the NPR-A. Under this alternative, 57 percent of the NPR-A subsurface would be available for oil and gas leasing and four current special areas covering 8.3 million acres would be maintained. Alternative B describes future management that emphasizes the protection of the surface resources of NPR-A. The plan would: 1) substantially increase areas designated as special areas; 2) designate extensive areas that would be unavailable for leasing around Teshekpuk Lake, in coastal bays and lagoons, and in the southwestern part of the Reserve with important caribou habitat and important primitive recreation values; and 3) recommend twelve rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Nearly 11 million acres of federally-owned subsurface, or 48 percent of the total in the NPR-A, would be made available for oil and gas leasing. Alternative C would provide for smaller additions to special areas than Alternative B, withhold from leasing the most remote part of NPR-A which has the greatest potential for providing a primitive recreation experience, provide for leasing with extensive surface protection stipulations near Teshekpuk Lake, and recommend three rivers for designation as wild and scenic rivers. Alternative C would make 17.9 million acres, or more than three-quarters of the NPR-A, available for oil and gas leasing. Selected coastal areas would not be available, nor would about 4.4 million acres in the far south of the Reserve. Under Alternative D, all lands within the NPR-A would be made available for oil and gas leasing, though leasing in lands currently deferred from leasing would not be offered for lease until the deferrals have expired. There would be no expansion of special areas and no prohibition of new non-subsistence permanent infrastructure, no new special areas would be designated, and BLM would not recommend any rivers for wild and scenic river designation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The IAP would address the nations need for production of more oil and gas through additional leasing in the NPR-A, and to protect surface values consistent with the exploration and development of oil and gas. By addressing the entire NPR-A, the plan would provide greater management consistency throughout the Petroleum Reserve than existing separate plans. The plan would benefit management by incorporating an updated and consistent analysis of issues such as climate change, species recently listed under the Endangered Species Act, updated oil and gas projections, and ramifications for onshore land management due to offshore oil and gas drilling. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Activities associated with the exploration and development of hydrocarbon resources would increase emissions of air pollutants and permanently disturb or destroy soil, vegetation, and wetlands. Adverse effects on water quality could occur from spills into freshwater or estuarine water bodies and a very large crude-oil spill could have serious impacts to streams and lakes. A spill that occurred during spring breakup or fall freeze-up could have the greatest impacts. Development activities could impact wildlife including fish, birds, terrestrial and marine mammals, and special status species. Noise and disturbance from seismic surveys, exploration, development, and production could affect the harvest of subsistence resources for the communities of Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright, and Point Lay. Scenic quality and opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation would be adversely affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final supplemental EISs on the Northeast NPR-A activity plan, see 07-0326D, Volume 31, Number 3 and 08-0257F, Volume 32, Number 3, respectively. For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs on the Northwest NPR-A activity plan, see 05-0011D, Volume 29, Number 1 and 05-0304F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120091, Volume 1--504 pages, Volume 2--689 pages, Volume 3--338 pages, Volume 4--287 pages, Volume 5--82 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Subsistence KW - Wetlands KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Colville River KW - Northeast National Petroleum Reserve KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046036?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%29.&rft.title=NATIONAL+PETROLEUM+RESERVE+-+ALASKA+INTEGRATED+ACTIVITY+PLAN%2C+NORTH+SLOPE+BOROUGH%2C+ALASKA+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMACT+STATEMENT+OF+JANUARY+2005%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; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GRANBY PUMPING PLANT SWITCHYARD WINDY GAP SUBSTATION TRANSMISSION LINE REBUILD, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 1020046031; 15284 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 is intended to address the electrical deficiencies anticipated due to the eventual failure of the Adams Tunnel cable and the antiquated line configuration in the project area. The Adams Tunnel cable, which provides the only secondary source of electrical power to the Grand Lake-Granby area, has exceeded its predicted useful life and, upon failure, will not be replaced. The system deficiencies potentially jeopardize the power supply for all electric customers in the service area. Key issues include visual resources and potential effects to sage grouse populations and habitat. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft 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. The existing 30-foot right-of-way (ROW) would be expanded to a width of 100 feet. 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 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. From Windy Gap Substation, the preferred option would route the transmission line along the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for five miles to just south of the Granby Substation. A second option would follow the existing transmission line alignment for three miles, and join the Windy Gap Pipeline ROW for two miles to just south of the Granby Substation. The Granby Pumping Plant Switchyard would be expanded to accommodate the second line and a new power transformer. Windy Gap Substation would also be modified to accommodate the second line. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would improve the reliability of electrical service to the Granby area, provide a second feed in advance of the loss of the Adams Tunnel cable, accommodate load growth, and bring the line to current codes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would have short-term adverse effects on wetland vegetation, soils, and surface and groundwater flow. Where construction in floodplains and wetlands cannot be avoided, long-term impacts to wetland vegetation could occur. Maintenance operations could have adverse effects on five special status plant species. The project would fragment wildlife habitat and increase potential for avian collisions. The Alternative D alignment is proximate to several raptor nests and greater sage grouse habitat. Expanded ROW and associated land use restrictions would impact residences, property owners, archaeological sites, and historic structures. Taller structures and associated disturbance would create long-term visual effects along Highway 34. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120086, 636 pages, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0400 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Easements KW - Electric Power KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arapaho National Recreation Area KW - Colorado KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046031?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=GRANBY+PUMPING+PLANT+SWITCHYARD+WINDY+GAP+SUBSTATION+TRANSMISSION+LINE+REBUILD%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UPPER LAS VEGAS WASH CONSERVATION TRANSFER AREA, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2004). AN - 1020046028; 15281 AB - PURPOSE: Boundary adjustments to the Upper Las Vegas Wash Conservation Transfer Area (CTA) in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. The 2004 Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary final EIS and Record of Decision allowed for the disposal of 46,700 acres of federal land to address continuing growth in the greater Las Vegas metropolitan area, but specified additional analysis of 5,000 acres to be withheld from sale because of a high concentration of sensitive resources. The CTA study area was subsequently expanded to 13,622 acres and stretches east from US Highway 95 near the Paiute Reservation to approximately four miles west of Interstate 15. Within the final CTA boundary, a conservation strategy agreement would be developed to protect vegetation and unique paleontological and archaeological resources and habitat for special status species. The study area is located within a broad, northwest-southeast-trending alluvial basin, and the Las Vegas Wash is a heavily incised natural flood channel that carries storm water and runoff from Las Vegas to Lake Mead. Three rare plant species and a number of protected wildlife species occur within the area and it contains large numbers of paleontological sites, 660 acres of the Tule Springs archeological site, and the 300-acre Eglington Preserve. This final supplemental EIS describes and analyzes six alternative CTA boundaries, ranging from 1,448 acres for the No Action Alternative, to 12,953 acres for Alternative A. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative B for implementation. The revised Alternative B boundary encompasses 10,670 acres and includes the Las Vegas Formation, sensitive cultural and botanical resources, the active wash and 100-year floodplain, and the alluvial fan north of the wash to the boundary of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge. The revised Alternative B boundary also includes the Eglington Preserve but does not include the Tule Springs state lands. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The boundary would protect the natural functioning of the Upper Las Vegas Wash and sensitive resources while offering 2,654 acres of lands for disposal and private development. The selected alternative would maintain existing stormwater volume, velocity, and depth, along with sediment load, flow location, and flow pattern of stormwater moving down the alluvial fans of the Sheep and Las Vegas ranges. Sensitive botanical, cultural, and paleontological resources in the CTA would be protected. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Private development on 2,654 acres would yield up to 1,440 tons of sediment loss annually as a result of surface erosion and up to 1,150 tons of stream bank erosion. Development on lands outside the boundary would remove 5.4 acres of occupied, 266.6 acres of high-potential, and 0.1 acre of moderate-potential bearpoppy habitat. There would be potential for exposure and destruction of undocumented fossil sites. High-density urban development would create visual impacts and increases in ambient noise. LEGAL MANDATES: Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), and Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft supplemental EIS, see 10-0057D, Volume 34, Number 1. For the abstract of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0255D, Volume 29, Number 3 and 05-0432F, Volume 29, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120083, Final Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision--348 pages and maps, Appendices--439 pages and maps, March 30, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/LV/ES/11-23+1793 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Erosion KW - Floodplains KW - Historic Sites KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Land Management KW - Open Space KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Preserves KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Resources KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Soils KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Las Vegas Resource Management Area KW - Nevada KW - Clark County Conservation of Public Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046028?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2004%29.&rft.title=UPPER+LAS+VEGAS+WASH+CONSERVATION+TRANSFER+AREA%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 30, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALNEV PIPELINE EXPANSION PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA AND CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1017751935; 15272 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation, and maintenance of a new 16-inch-diameter buried pipeline to carry refined petroleum products from an existing facility in San Bernardino County, California to an existing facility in Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Calnev Pipe Line, LLC (Calnev), an operating partnership for Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant for the new pipeline in order to expand the capacity of the Calnev Pipeline System. The project site encompasses 2,841 acres of land under multiple jurisdictions including 1,329 acres of undeveloped lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Marine Corps (Logistics Base), the State of California, the State of Nevada, San Bernardino County, and Clark County. Incorporated communities crossed by the pipeline include, among others, the cities of Colton, Rialto, Victorville, Adelanto, and Barstow in California and Henderson and Las Vegas in Nevada. The new pipeline would extend approximately 233 miles from the existing North Colton Terminal to the Bracken Junction near the McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas, roughly following the Interstate 15 (I-15) corridor. In addition to the new pipeline, the proposed project would include a new pump station and ancillary facilities near Baker, California; a new three-mile lateral from the Bracken Junction to McCarran International Airport; and new or modified connections to new or modified laterals, valves, and ancillary modifications. This draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. The general route for all three action alternatives is primarily located within or adjacent to Calnevs approved ROW grants for one of their two existing parallel pipelines. Of the 233 miles of new pipeline under the proposed action (Alternative 1), 162.7 miles (70 percent) would be constructed in or adjacent to one of these existing Calnev ROW grants, and 53.8 miles would be adjacent to their ROW grants or other linear features (e.g., I-15). The remaining 16.9 miles would be constructed along a new route that is within a utility corridor designated within the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Calnev would use existing paved or dirt roads and improved access roads to gain access to the pipeline ROW during construction. One new maintenance road, the Afton Access Road, is planned as part of the proposed project. Alternatives 2 and 3 include route modifications at specific locations for reasons of constructability, reduction of impacts, and administrative feasibility. Alternatives 2 and 3 also include an alternative location for the proposed Silver Lake Pump Station, and a new junction to be constructed at the corner of Sunset and Valley View in Las Vegas. Alternative 3, which would avoid the Mojave National Preserve, is the preferred alternative). Approval of any of the action alternatives would require amendment of the CDCA Plan. Construction would take 12 to 18 months and is expected to begin in 2012. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The new pipeline would increase the existing Calnev system capacity from 156,000 to approximately 200,000 barrels of petroleum products per day and increase the reliability of petroleum-products delivery to the California high desert and southern Nevada. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would involve above and below-ground disturbance, resulting in impacts on surface and subsurface cultural resources. In addition, construction could affect water quality, drainage, and flood, stream, and stormwater flows. The pipeline would cross the Mojave River and pass through special management areas where a pipeline rupture could result in the accidental release of 1,300 to 5,000 barrels of petroleum. Transportation systems would be impacted by an increase in highway traffic. Construction would have temporary impacts on recreation areas including the Stoddard Valley off-highway vehicle area and recreation resources in the Ivanpah Valley. Despite reclamation, the pipeline would create permanent visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377). JF - EPA number: 120074, Draft EIS--837 pages, Appendices--704 pages, March 23, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/CA/ES-2012-003+1793 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Easements KW - Petroleum KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Safety Analyses KW - Visual Resources KW - Wetlands KW - California KW - Mojave Desert KW - Nevada KW - San Bernardino National Forest KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017751935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALNEV+PIPELINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=CALNEV+PIPELINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA+AND+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, Barstow, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 23, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAMPTON NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND. AN - 1017751932; 15269 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan (GMP) for the Hampton National Historical Site (Hampton NHS), a 62-acre unit of the National Park System (NPS) in Baltimore County, Maryland is proposed. Hampton NHS is located 13 miles north of downtown Baltimore and shares a superintendent and five senior park managers with Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Shrine. The new GMP would replace the 1983 plan and describe the resource conditions, facilities, and visitor experiences the park should provide over the next 15 to 20 years. Hampton NHS is the remnant of a 24,000-acre industrial and agricultural estate amassed and operated by the Ridgely family from before the Revolutionary War until after World War II. The present site encompasses the family mansion, support buildings, and the original lower farm house, dairy, slave and servants quarters and other remains of the home farm. Hampton NHS has been a partnership park from the time of its designation. It was managed by the Society for the Preservation of Maryland Antiquities from 1948 until 1979 when the National Park Service assumed full administrative responsibility for the site. Historic Hampton, Inc., a nonprofit organization, continues to provide valuable support to the park. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. The action alternatives would retain essential landscape features, but vary in the intensity of proposed rehabilitation and restoration. Alternative 2 would reintroduce a number of specific features, recreating as closely as possible the historic appearance of the estate. Post-1948 development would be removed and features critical to understanding the 19th century setting would be reconstructed. Alternative 3, which is the preferred alternative, would seek to evoke the character of the landscape during the period of significance and ensure that operational and maintenance costs remain sustainable. Modern and historic buildings would be rehabilitated to provide for visitor services and the modular buildings housing administrative and partner offices would be removed. Relocation of the modern entrance drive on the mansion side and changes to the access road to the farm would provide safer access to new visitor orientation areas on both sides of Hampton Lane. Full implementation of a selected plan is dependent on available appropriations and staffing priorities and could be many years in the future. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new GMP would provide a clear definition of the parks purpose, significance, fundamental resources and values, and the direction that will guide and coordinate all subsequent planning and management. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Rehabilitation efforts to solve existing safety and access problems could result in loss of historic integrity. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0345D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120071, 156 pages, March 23, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Hampton National Historic Site KW - Maryland 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/1017751932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HAMPTON+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.title=HAMPTON+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+BALTIMORE+COUNTY%2C+MARYLAND.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Towson, Maryland; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 23, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HURON-MANISTEE NATIONAL FORESTS, 2006 LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGMENT PLAN, MICHIGAN (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2006). AN - 1017751930; 15277 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of the 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan for the Huron-Manistee National Forests, Alcona, Crawford, Iosco, Lake, Manistee, Mason, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Oceana, Ogemaw, Oscoda, and Wexford counties, Michigan is proposed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found deficiencies in the analysis conducted in preparing the 2006 Forest Plan. Specifically, the court found that the Forest Service failed to consider closing 13 semiprimitive nonmotorized areas and the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness Area to gun hunting and snowmobile use. Currently, the 13 areas are managed to provide high visual diversity and a variety of recreation opportunities for semiprimitive nonmotorized activities such as hiking, cross-country skiing, primitive camping, fishing and firearm hunting. The Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness is located along the shoreline of Lake Michigan and hiking, camping, scenic viewing, nature study and wildlife viewing are popular activities. Hunting white-tailed deer is a popular activity in the fall. This final supplemental EIS presents additional analysis and evaluates four alternatives including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1). The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative 4 for implementation. The management area designation of 11 of the 14 affected areas will be changed to special areas managed to provide a less roaded recreation experience. The designation of two of the affected areas will be changed to roaded natural, and the current designation of the primitive area will be maintained. No new firearm hunting-related or snowmobile trail closures are proposed and gun hunting will continue to be allowed in accordance with regulations of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The amendment would address deficiencies identified by the court in the case of Meister v. U.S. Department of Agriculture. The selected alternative would preserve the current recreation opportunities offered in the Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness and other areas of the forests. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Snowmobile use would continue to be a small source category of emissions and noise. Motorized access for deer hunting in areas where Forest System roads could be closed might decrease, but the majority of the 14 analysis areas are within 0.5 mile of a road and it is unlikely that hunters will be affected. LEGAL MANDATES: Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs, see 05-0506D, Volume 29, Number 4 and 06-0377F, Volume 30, Number 3, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120079, Final Supplemental EIS--593 pages, Maps--28 pages, Recreation Supply and Demand Analysis--89 pages, Record of Decision--68 pages, March 23, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Forests KW - Hunting Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Noise KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Huron National Forest KW - Manistee National Forest KW - Michigan KW - Nordhouse Dunes Wilderness KW - Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017751930?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2006+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.title=HURON-MANISTEE+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+2006+LAND+AND+RESOURCE+MANAGMENT+PLAN%2C+MICHIGAN+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Cadillac, Michigan; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 23, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-31 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1015457710; 15265 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of a solar energy ground lease and associated agreements entered into by the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (the Tribe) for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic facility on federal trust lands of the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. K Road Moapa Solar LLC has entered into an agreement with the Tribe to lease land, up to 50 years, for a solar generating station with the potential to produce up to 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would require Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of a 0.5-mile right-of-way (ROW) across public lands adjoining the Moapa River Indian Reservation as well as the approval of a plan of development for a 5.5-mile electric transmission line and improvements to an existing utility access road within an existing 4,000-foot-wide utility corridor managed by the BLM. The ROW would be used to link the proposed solar generation facility to the existing Crystal substation via a new 500-kilovolt transmission line. The proposed project would be located adjacent to Interstate 15 approximately 30 miles north of Las Vegas. Key issues include those related to air quality, vegetation and rare plant species, ephemeral streams, desert tortoise, and cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action, the solar arrays, substation, and operations building and parking would be contained within a 2,000-acre solar facility footprint. The existing utility access road that originates from Las Vegas Boulevard and provides direct access to the Crystal substation would be the primary access route. Construction would be carried out in three phases of 100 MW to 150 MW each and all associated facilities would be completed during phase 1. The project would require 380 acre feet of water during the construction phase and no more than 20 to 40 acre feet per year for operations and maintenance. Under the reduced solar facility footprint alternative, only phases 1 and 2 would be completed and the final station capacity would be 250 MW of electricity. This alternative would also utilize an alternative corridor for the transmission line ROW. The alternative ROW would be a direct route to the Crystal substation and impact less overall acreage for construction; however, it would traverse an open area of the desert outside of the existing utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would generate substantial lease income for the Tribe over a 35-year period. Utility connection would provide an opportunity for the Tribe to further develop their travel plaza. The electricity generated by the solar station could be sold to the California and Nevada markets and would assist utilities in meeting their renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Facilities construction would disturb up to 2,153 acres and potentially impact 8,153 acres. Short-term air quality impacts would result from equipment and vehicle emissions. Significant and cumulative impacts to desert tortoise would be mitigated by creating a 6,000-acre relocation area within the Reservation. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120067, Final EIS--394 pages, Appendices--1,124 pages, March 16, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2011-0067-EIS KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Indian Reservations KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert 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/1015457710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 16, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - UINTA BASIN NATURAL GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MONUMENT BUTTE-RED WASH AND WEST TAVAPUTS EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENTS AREA, UINTAH AND DUCHESNE COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 1015457700; 15263 AB - PURPOSE: The development of oil and natural gas resources within the Monument ButteRed Wash and West Tavaputs Exploration and Development Areas, Uintah and Duchesne counties, Utah is proposed. The Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Project area encompasses 206,826 acres and is located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. The project area includes lands within the restored boundary of the Ute Indian Reservation, but no lands administered by the tribe or by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The proponent, Gasco Energy, Inc., is targeting geologic strata in the Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk, Mancos, Dakota, and Green River formations, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 feet below the earth's surface. Six alternatives are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), Gasco would drill 1,491 new natural gas production wells and construct associated access roads, water supply pipelines, and gathering lines within the Riverbend, Wilkin Ridge, and Gate Canyon areas. At the end of each well's 30-year productive life, it would be plugged and abandoned and the affected area reclaimed. Alternative B would involve reduced development of 1,114 wells with a maximum surface disturbance of 485 acres per year on federal land. Alternative C analyzes the effects of a maximum development scenario of 1,887 new gas production wells. Alternative D is the No Action Alternative and would involve continued natural gas exploration and development at a much smaller scale. Under Alternative E, reduced development of 1,114 wells would employ directional drilling. Alternative F is the preferred alternative and would involve directional and vertical drilling of approximately 1,298 new gas production wells from a total of 575 well pads over a period of 15 years. Approximately 198 miles of new road would be constructed to access the proposed wells. Gas treatment capacity would be expanded by a maximum of 18,186 horsepower at two existing gas plants to handle the increased production. The primary source of water for drilling would be recycled and treated production water supplemented by a Green River well, the Myton water dock facility, the Duchesne Valley Water Treatment Plant, and other available sources. Gasco would construct evaporative ponds limited to the capacity sufficient to dispose of water from the first five years of proposed development (approximately 78 acres). At the end of five years, the ponds would be revisited to determine if they can be reclaimed or must exist into the future. Water disposal above this interim capacity would be addressed through scaled back drilling or through alternative water disposal methods. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Authorization would allow Gasco Energy to develop valid lease rights to produce commercial and economic quantities of oil and gas. Gasco estimates that the proposed action could yield three trillion cubic feet of natural gas through 2053. Under the preferred alternative, an estimated 195 jobs would be created and $36.6 million in local revenue would be generated while avoiding development in the Green River floodplain and Nine Mile Canyon. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb a total of 3,604 acres with potential for adverse impacts to unidentified cultural resources and destruction of fossils. Development would cause increases in hazardous air pollutants and emissions of particulate matter. Livestock grazing would be impacted by a reduction in forage equivalent to 369 total animal unit months. Recreational resources would be impacted through the long-term loss of primitive, dispersed, and unconfined recreational opportunities. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0296D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120065, Final EIS--904 pages and maps, Appendices--1,380 pages, March 16, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Drilling KW - Emissions KW - Grazing KW - Indian Reservations KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Soils Surveys KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Green River KW - Utah KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015457700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=UINTA+BASIN+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+MONUMENT+BUTTE-RED+WASH+AND+WEST+TAVAPUTS+EXPLORATION+AND+DEVELOPMENTS+AREA%2C+UINTAH+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=UINTA+BASIN+NATURAL+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+MONUMENT+BUTTE-RED+WASH+AND+WEST+TAVAPUTS+EXPLORATION+AND+DEVELOPMENTS+AREA%2C+UINTAH+AND+DUCHESNE+COUNTIES%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 16, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OCOTILLO EXPRESS WIND ENERGY PROJECT, IMPERIAL COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1013491818; 15259 AB - PURPOSE: The issuance of a right-of-way (ROW) grant to Ocotillo Express, LLC for the construction, operation, maintenance, and decommissioning of a utility-scale wind energy facility on public and private lands in western Imperial County, California is proposed. The Ocotillo Wind Energy Facility (OWEF) would be located almost entirely on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) five miles west of the town of Ocotillo. Authorization would require amendment of the California Desert Conservation Area (CDCA) Plan. Ocotillo Express has also submitted an application to the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program for the proposed facility. Key issues include: concerns regarding the placement of a large wind project on undisturbed desert land, potential conflict with recreational and wilderness uses, impacts to biological and cultural resources, risk of wildfire hazards, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and groundwater use. Six alternatives are considered in this final EIS. Under Alternative 1, BLM would grant the ROW for the project as proposed with 155 wind turbines. Alternatives 2 and 3 would involve modified project designs with 137 wind turbines and 105 wind turbines, respectively. Alternative 4 is the No Action Alternative. Alternative 5 would deny the ROW application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site unsuitable for wind development, while Alternative 6 would deny the application and amend the CDCA Plan to declare the site suitable for wind development. The preferred alternative is a refinement of the proposed project that would further reduce the effects of the OWEF on cultural resources. Ocotillo Express proposed the new configuration of 112 wind turbines which would be located on a subset of the 155 turbines sites evaluated under Alternative 1. These changes would result in a project similar in size to Alternative 3 and would produce up to 356.5 megawatts of electricity. The wind turbine generators, substation, administration, operations and maintenance facilities, transmission lines, access roads, and temporary construction areas would cover 12,410 acres. Portions of the electrical lines would be placed underground, and the project would tie in to the electric grid on-site, eliminating the need for more power lines traversing BLM land. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would provide enough electricity to power 140,000 homes and would help meet federal and state renewable energy supply and greenhouse gas emissions reduction requirements. Up to 246 jobs would be created at peak construction. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would create temporary impacts to air quality and would result in disturbance and loss of sensitive vegetation, suitable peninsular bighorn sheep habitat, burrowing owl habitat, flat-tailed horned lizard habitat, special status raptor and migratory bird species, and special status bat species. Paleontological resources could be damaged. Operation of the wind turbines would result in a substantial increase over ambient noise levels and in quieter areas would be perceived as a doubling of loudness. A natural desert landscape would be converted to one dominated by industrial character and the OWEF would be visible from portions of the Jacumba Wilderness, the Yuha Basin, and the Coyote Mountains Wilderness. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120061, Final EIS--1,013 pages, Appendices--1,673 pages, Response to Comments--384 pages, March 9, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 11-20 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Supply Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Yuha Desert KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1013491818?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=OCOTILLO+EXPRESS+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+IMPERIAL+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, El Centro, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 9, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-15 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Excessive fertilizer use linked to phosphorus in waterways AN - 925782668 AB - The study examines how iron and other elements present in particles in an aquifer can immobilize phosphorus and remove it from groundwater. Under the right conditions, such as in the Maryland site, these processes completely limit phosphorus movement in groundwater. However, if aquifer particles are continually exposed to excess phosphorus and become saturated, the excess phosphorus will eventually be transported to a discharge zone, such as a stream. JF - Western Farm Press AU - USGS AD - USGS Y1 - 2012/03/02/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Mar 02 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/925782668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Excessive+fertilizer+use+linked+to+phosphorus+in+waterways&rft.au=USGS&rft.aulast=USGS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Business Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. Mar 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 14 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032569; 15243-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032467; 15243-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032466; 15243-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032465; 15243-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032464; 15243-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032462; 15243-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032461; 15243-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032456; 15243-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 17 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032437; 15243-5_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 5 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032431; 15244-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 16 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032430; 15243-5_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 4 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032427; 15244-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 15 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032424; 15243-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 3 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032423; 15244-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 2 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032418; 15244-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 1 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032416; 15244-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - ICE AGE COMPLEX AT CROSS PLAINS GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ICE AGE NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DANE COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 1027032397; 15246-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A management plan for the Ice Age Complex, a 1,700-acre area that contains an outstanding collection of glacial landforms, located just west of Madison, Wisconsin is proposed. The Ice Age Complex at Cross Plains has been deemed nationally significant under two federal designations: 1) Ice Age National Scientific Reserve and 2) Ice Age National Scenic Trail. In addition to National Park Service (NPS) land, the Ice Age Complex includes public land owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Dane County, Wisconsin. The 1,200-mile Ice Age Trail connects six of the nine units that make up the Ice Age Reserve, generally following the terminal moraine and other glacial landscape features. Currently, the Ice Age Complex is undeveloped for visitor use and minimally maintained. The lands owned by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and NPS have no improvements to facilitate visitor experience. The Shoveler Sink Waterfowl Production Area (WPA), managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is open to visitors for hunting, fishing, and other wildlife-dependent activities, but the WPA has no visitor facilities other than two small unsurfaced parking lots. Privately owned lands in the complex consist of agricultural fields, along with several homes and their outbuildings. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, ecological restoration would be emphasized to support interpretation of how natural conditions in the complex would have evolved after the glacial period under minimal human influence. Alternative 3 would emphasize interpretation and education and would expand the 1,473-acre complex boundary westward to include a 228-acre, WDNR-protected parcel. Alternative 4 would include the same expansion, but would emphasize outdoor recreation opportunities. Alternative 5 is the preferred alternative and would provide visitors with interpretation of the evolution of the complex from the last glacial retreat and opportunities to enjoy outdoor recreation. The most sensitive ecological areas would be carefully protected, and visitor access would be highly controlled in these areas. The boundary would be expanded to incorporate both the 228-acre parcel mentioned above, and another 40-acre parcel protected and owned by the WDNR, so that the total size of the complex would be 1,741 acres. The Ice Age Complex would serve as the headquarters for the Ice Age Trail and the former Wilkie property at the core of the site would be developed to accommodate offices for staff and a visitor center. Total one-time costs of implementing the preferred alternative are estimated at $7.1 million in 2011 dollars. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The plan would establish a framework to assist in making decisions for managing the Ice Age Complex over the next 15 to 20 year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities could have a moderate adverse impact on soils from erosion and compaction. There would be minor adverse impacts on the soundscape from increased visitation. LEGAL MANDATES: National Trails System Act of 1968. JF - EPA number: 120048, Executive Summary--16 pages, Draft EIS--164 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Land Management KW - Geologic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Trails KW - Ice Age National Scenic Trail KW - Wisconsin KW - National Trails System Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ICE+AGE+COMPLEX+AT+CROSS+PLAINS+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ICE+AGE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DANE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=ICE+AGE+COMPLEX+AT+CROSS+PLAINS+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ICE+AGE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DANE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Denver, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 21 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032394; 15243-5_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 20 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032389; 15243-5_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032389?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 19 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032386; 15243-5_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BENTON, KITTITAS, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BENTON, KITTITAS, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 1027032385; 15242-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated water resource management plan is proposed as a comprehensive approach to water supply and ecosystem restoration improvements in the Yakima River basin of south-central Washington. The basin encompasses 6,155 square miles and includes portions of Benton, Kittitas, Klickitat, and Yakima counties. The Bureau of Reclamation operates the Yakima Project to provide irrigation water, flood control, power generation, and instream flows for wildlife and recreation. Project features include: five major reservoirs with a total capacity of one million acre-feet, five diversion dams, 420 miles of canals, 1,697 miles of laterals, 30 pumping plants, 144 miles of drains, two power plants, plus fish passage and protection facilities. Anadromous and resident fish populations are seriously depleted due to obstructions, degraded riparian habitat and floodplain functions, and altered streamflows. Demand for irrigation water exceeds supply in dry and drought years, leading to severe rationing for junior water rights holders. This final programmatic EIS examines the proposed integrated plan and a No Action Alternative. The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan is the result of collaboration with stakeholders and includes seven elements: reservoir fish passage, structural and operational changes to existing facilities, surface water storage, groundwater storage, habitat/watershed protection and enhancement, enhanced water conservation, and market reallocation. The plan revives a proposal to build the 450-foot-tall Wymer Dam, creating a 162,500-acre-foot off-channel reservoir on Lmuma Creek which would be filled with water pumped from the Yakima River during high flows. An average of 82,500 acre-feet of its capacity would be used to improve stream flows. The plan also revives options: to replace Bumping Lake Dam with a new dam downstream, increasing its reservoir capacity from 33,700 acre-feet to 190,000 acre-feet; and to build a five-mile pipeline to carry water from Keechelus Reservoir to Kachess Reservoir to reduce flows, improve habitat during high flows, and provide water storage for downstream needs. In addition, the plan proposes constructing a new outlet in Kachess Dam that would be 80 feet lower than the existing outlet, making it possible to withdraw another 200,000 acre-feet of currently inactive storage from the reservoir on the upper Yakima River. Two options are being considered for that project, a gravity-flow tunnel or a pipeline and pump station. Other plan proposals include: modifying spillway gates on Cle Elum Dam to raise its reservoir three feet, increasing available storage by 14,600 acre-feet; modifying Kittitas Reclamation District irrigation canals on the Yakima River to reduce leakage and allow greater flexibility in water supply management; improving Wapatox Canal to allow more efficient distribution of water; studying using pumps for an inter-basin exchange of water with the Columbia River Basin; and construction of fish passages at Cle Elum, Bumping Lake, Keechelus, Kachess, and Tieton dams and improvement of fish passage at Clear Lake Dam on the Tieton River. The integrated plan is the preferred alternative and would be implemented over a period of two to 20 years depending on the availability of funding. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore ecological functions in the river system and provide more reliable and sustainable water resources for the health of the riverine environment, as well as for agricultural, municipal, and domestic needs. Fish passage and habitat/watershed enhancements would provide further benefits for fish and wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb habitat and cause erosion and sedimentation. There would be few long-term adverse effects excepting habitat losses and shoreline recreational losses at the enlarged Bumping Lake Reservoir and new Wymer Reservoir. The plan would further reduce the water used for generation at the Roza and Chandler hydroelectric plants, cutting annual generation to 82,000 megawatt-hours from 107,000 megawatt-hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plan Act of 1984, Public Law 96-162, and Yakima River Basin Watershed Enhancement Project Act of 1994 (P.L. 103434). JF - EPA number: 120044, 894 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Hoover Power Plan Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-162, Project Authorization KW - Yakima River Basin Watershed Enhancement Project Act of 1994, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&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 the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032383; 15243-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 18 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032382; 15243-5_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032382?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032379; 15243-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032379?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032377; 15243-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032374; 15243-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032374?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 10 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032373; 15244-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032373?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032372; 15243-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032372?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 9 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032371; 15244-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 8 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032369; 15244-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 21] T2 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1027032368; 15243-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1027032368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 7 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032367; 15244-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032367?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. [Part 6 of 10] T2 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1027032366; 15244-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032366?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046708; 15245-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046705; 15245-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046703; 15245-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046701; 15245-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046698; 15245-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046484; 15245-7_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046480; 15245-7_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046480?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046477; 15245-7_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046477?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046473; 15245-7_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046471; 15245-7_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046467; 15245-7_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046467?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046464; 15245-7_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046460; 15245-7_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046445; 15245-7_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046441; 15245-7_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046440; 15245-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046436; 15245-7_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EASTERN INTERIOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - EASTERN INTERIOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 1020046417; 15249-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 6.7 million acres of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Interior and Central Yukon field offices, Alaska are proposed. The lands covered by the proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) include the White Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA), Steese National Conservation Area (NCA), Fortymile area, three wild and scenic rivers, and lands in the upper Black River and greater Fairbanks area currently not included in a land use plan. While the planning area is bounded by the Elliott and Dalton Highways on the West, the Alaska Highway on the South, and has the Steese and Taylor Highways within its boundaries, the majority of the planning area is roadless. Key issues include: minerals management, travel management, wilderness characteristics, subsistence, recreation, and wildlife. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue present management practices based on existing RMPs and other management decision documents. Under Alternative B, protection of resource values would be emphasized and 85 percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and mineral entry, including the Steese NCA, the White Mountains NRA, the Upper Black River Subunit, and the three wild and scenic river corridors. All areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be closed to mineral entry and mineral leasing. The four existing research natural areas (RNAs) would be maintained and four new ACECs would be designated. Five eligible river segments would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Off highway vehicle (OHV) designations would be put in place in all planning subunits and some areas would be limited to existing or designated trails and some areas would be closed to summer motorized use. Alternative C is the preferred alternative and would provide a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Forty-eight percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and 38 percent to mineral entry and location, including the White Mountains NRA, eighty percent of the Steese NCA, and the three wild and scenic river corridors. Some ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location, and leasing. Similar to Alternative B, existing RNAs would be maintained, but only three ACECs would be designated. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. OHV designations would be put into place in all planning subunits, but would be somewhat less restrictive than Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize resource development and production of minerals and services would be less constrained than under alternatives B and C. Nineteen percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and 26 percent to mineral entry and location. Existing RNAs would be maintained, three ACECs would be designated, and OHV designations would be put in place in all planning subunits. Generally, travel and trail restrictions would be less, although some areas or uses would be limited to existing trails, and some areas would be closed to summer motorized use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide a comprehensive framework to guide management of public lands and interests within the planning area. Designated ACECs and riparian conservation areas would provide additional protection to wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other natural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities would remove vegetation, accelerate erosion, and increase the potential for spread of invasive weeds. Fish and aquatic resources would be affected by activities which alter stream channels, remove or damage riparian vegetation, or result in soil erosion and sedimentation to aquatic habitat. Under the preferred alternative, less of the planning area would be managed for a primitive, semi-primitive, or backcountry recreation setting. While proliferation of user-created trails would be reduced compared to Alternative A, resource damage would still occur in some areas. A more restrictive OHV designation would somewhat reduce access to BLM-managed lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120051, 1,267 pages and maps, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Steese National Conservation Area KW - White Mountains National Recreation Area KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EASTERN+INTERIOR+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=EASTERN+INTERIOR+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046408; 15245-7_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046399; 15245-7_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046076; 15245-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046073; 15245-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046073?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046071; 15245-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046070; 15245-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046070?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046068; 15245-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046056; 15245-7_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046054; 15245-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 29] T2 - SPOKANE TRIBE OF INDIANS WEST PLAINS CASINO AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 1020046053; 15245-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the West Plains Casino and Mixed-Use Development by the Spokane Tribe of Indians (Tribe) on a 145-acre property adjacent to the City of Airway Heights, Spokane County, Washington are proposed. The property is currently held in federal trust on behalf of the Tribe and the proposed casino would require a two-part determination that gaming on the property would be in the best interest of the Tribe and not detrimental to the surrounding community. The Tribe has a total enrollment of 2,697 members, of which, 962 members live on the Tribes reservation in Stevens County. The unemployment rate on the Spokane Reservation rose in 2009 to 47 percent, up from 34 percent in 2008. In addition, 45.3 percent of the employed have such low earnings that they fall beneath the federal poverty level. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 4), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative 1 is the proposed action and would involve a phased development with 98,442 square feet of gaming area and 2,500 electronic gambling machines. In addition, the plan calls for a 300-room hotel, dining facilities, bars, and a four-story concrete parking structure with 1,500 parking spaces. A total of 4,753 surface parking spaces would also be provided. A retail big-box store with 107,490 square feet of floor space would be built, as well as a tribal cultural center and tribal police and fire station. Alternative 2 calls for a smaller gambling operation with 2,500 electronic gambling machines, no hotel and no parking garage. A total of 4,624 surface parking spaces would be provided. Under Alternative 3, the overall building program would be similar in size to that of Alternative 1, but a casino would not be developed. The mixed-use development complex would consist of a 300-room hotel, parking facilities, retail space, a tribal cultural center, tribal police and fire station, and a two-story commercial building. Construction costs for the proposed action are estimated at $404 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would promote opportunities for economic development and self-sufficiency of the Tribe and its members. It is estimated that the project would generate $4.7 million in state, county and local property taxes each year. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction could result in loss of topsoil and a degradation of air quality through wind erosion. The increase in traffic generated by buildout of Alternative 1 would contribute to unacceptable traffic operations at six intersections in the study area and transportation improvements would be required. Airway Heights would experience increased costs associated with demand for additional law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services. However, payments by the Tribe would compensate the city for costs. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120047, Draft EIS--375 pages, Appendices--1,563 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Economic Assessments KW - Employment KW - Hotels KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Resorts KW - Rivers KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Washington 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/1020046053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=SPOKANE+TRIBE+OF+INDIANS+WEST+PLAINS+CASINO+AND+MIXED-USE+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+SPOKANE+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&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 - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EASTERN INTERIOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALASKA. AN - 1011532539; 15249 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 6.7 million acres of public lands and resources administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Interior and Central Yukon field offices, Alaska are proposed. The lands covered by the proposed Resource Management Plan (RMP) include the White Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA), Steese National Conservation Area (NCA), Fortymile area, three wild and scenic rivers, and lands in the upper Black River and greater Fairbanks area currently not included in a land use plan. While the planning area is bounded by the Elliott and Dalton Highways on the West, the Alaska Highway on the South, and has the Steese and Taylor Highways within its boundaries, the majority of the planning area is roadless. Key issues include: minerals management, travel management, wilderness characteristics, subsistence, recreation, and wildlife. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. Alternative A is the No Action Alternative and would continue present management practices based on existing RMPs and other management decision documents. Under Alternative B, protection of resource values would be emphasized and 85 percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and mineral entry, including the Steese NCA, the White Mountains NRA, the Upper Black River Subunit, and the three wild and scenic river corridors. All areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) would be closed to mineral entry and mineral leasing. The four existing research natural areas (RNAs) would be maintained and four new ACECs would be designated. Five eligible river segments would be recommended suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Off highway vehicle (OHV) designations would be put in place in all planning subunits and some areas would be limited to existing or designated trails and some areas would be closed to summer motorized use. Alternative C is the preferred alternative and would provide a moderate level of protection, use, and enhancement of resources and services. Forty-eight percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and 38 percent to mineral entry and location, including the White Mountains NRA, eighty percent of the Steese NCA, and the three wild and scenic river corridors. Some ACECs would be closed to mineral entry and location, and leasing. Similar to Alternative B, existing RNAs would be maintained, but only three ACECs would be designated. No rivers would be recommended as suitable for designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. OHV designations would be put into place in all planning subunits, but would be somewhat less restrictive than Alternative B. Alternative D would emphasize resource development and production of minerals and services would be less constrained than under alternatives B and C. Nineteen percent of the planning area would remain closed to mineral leasing and 26 percent to mineral entry and location. Existing RNAs would be maintained, three ACECs would be designated, and OHV designations would be put in place in all planning subunits. Generally, travel and trail restrictions would be less, although some areas or uses would be limited to existing trails, and some areas would be closed to summer motorized use. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would provide a comprehensive framework to guide management of public lands and interests within the planning area. Designated ACECs and riparian conservation areas would provide additional protection to wildlife, fish, vegetation, and other natural resources. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Ground-disturbing activities would remove vegetation, accelerate erosion, and increase the potential for spread of invasive weeds. Fish and aquatic resources would be affected by activities which alter stream channels, remove or damage riparian vegetation, or result in soil erosion and sedimentation to aquatic habitat. Under the preferred alternative, less of the planning area would be managed for a primitive, semi-primitive, or backcountry recreation setting. While proliferation of user-created trails would be reduced compared to Alternative A, resource damage would still occur in some areas. A more restrictive OHV designation would somewhat reduce access to BLM-managed lands. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487) and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120051, 1,267 pages and maps, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Motor Vehicles KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Scenic Areas KW - Subsistence KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Steese National Conservation Area KW - White Mountains National Recreation Area KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011532539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EASTERN+INTERIOR+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=EASTERN+INTERIOR+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fairbanks, Alaska; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, ST. CROIX, U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS. AN - 1011532534; 15244 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan to guide future resource preservation and visitor use at the Buck Island Reef National Monument, north of the island of St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands is proposed. The monument was established in 1961 for the purpose of protecting Buck Island and its adjoining shoals, rocks, and undersea coral reef formations and to preserve one of the finest marine gardens in the Caribbean Sea. The last comprehensive management planning effort was completed in 1983 and a new plan is needed to address subsequent changes, including the 2001 boundary expansion from 880 acres to 19,015 acres which established the monument as a no-take marine reserve, federal listing of elkhorn and staghorn corals as federal threatened species, re-introduction of the federally endangered St. Croix ground lizard, and impacts to marine and coastal ecosystems associated with climate change, disease, and storms. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this draft EIS. The action alternatives differ mainly in the type and level of access to the park and in particular, to Buck Island in terms of anchoring and/or mooring within the monument, number of vessels accommodated by each alternative, and number of staff proposed. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would provide increased resource protection by phasing out the existing 22-acre anchoring area along the West Beach of Buck Island over a 10-year period as moorings are installed. Larger vessel anchoring would be available by permit in five designated areas, as a way to minimize conflicts with near shore resources and visitors. A marine hazard zone would protect 5,000 acres of critical habitat for elkhorn and staghorn corals. A resource protection zone would encompass the majority of the parks marine environment and protect a variety of distinct reef habitats: shallow to deep reefs, seagrass beds, shelf edge communities and oceanic habitats. An island discovery zone would provide on-island recreation areas including beaches, picnic areas, hiking trail and observation areas. Alternative C would include a two-acre anchoring zone at West Beach to accommodate boaters and weekend recreational visitors. Alternative D would provide vessel access via a 16-acre anchoring zone off the shore of West Beach. However, the size of the anchoring zone would be based upon resource conditions and would be subject to change to protect resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would preserve significant natural and cultural resources, provide for public enjoyment, and address competing demands for limited resources and priorities over the next 15 to 20 years. Under the preferred alternative, an anticipated increase of six full time resource management staff would provide increased opportunities for partnering with agencies and other organizations. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Overall impacts to soil/sand, water resources, vegetation and wildlife would be negligible to minor and both adverse and beneficial. Threatened and endangered species could be affected, but are not likely to be adversely affected. Human activities would create adverse impacts to archeological resources. The preferred alternative would limit visitors with a preference for anchoring. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120046, 383 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Beaches KW - Corals KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Islands KW - Land Management KW - Marine Systems KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Reefs KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Buck Island Reef National Monument KW - Caribbean Sea KW - Virgin Islands KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011532534?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.title=BUCK+ISLAND+REEF+NATIONAL+MONUMENT+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+ST.+CROIX%2C+U.S.+VIRGIN+ISLANDS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Christiansted, Virgin Islands; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ST. LUCIE COUNTY SOUTH BEACH AND DUNE RESTORATION PROJECT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 1011532533; 15243 AB - PURPOSE: Beach restoration within the southernmost 5.2 miles of Atlantic shoreline in St. Lucie County, Florida is proposed. The project area is located on Floridas east coast about 100 miles north of Miami and 25 miles east of Lake Okeechobee. The countys coastline consists primarily of 21.5 miles of South Hutchinson and North Hutchinson Island, barrier islands generally a mile or less wide separated by Ft. Pierce Inlet. The Indian River Lagoon, Ft. Pierce Inlet, and St. Lucie Inlet separate South Hutchinson Island from Floridas mainland. The beaches south of Fort Pierce Inlet have sustained long-term erosion due to the downdrift effects of the inlet and damaging storms have caused significant sand losses since at least 1972. Net erosion rates of 13.1 feet per year, long-term erosion, hurricanes, and emergency fill efforts have left numerous buildings with minimal dune protection. Key issues include project design, the level of hardbottom impact, the level of mitigation, and the impacts of offshore shoal dredging. This final EIS considers seven alternatives: 1) a No Action Alternative; 2) beach fill with no impact to existing hardbottom; 3) beach fill to restore the 1972 beach and dune; 4) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; 5) beach fill to restore the 1972 dune with a 70-foot berm; 6) beach fill of the south segment only to restore the 1972 dune with a 35-foot berm; and 7) beach and dune restoration with T-head groins. Alternative 6 is preferred by the St. Lucie County Erosion District and would restore the 1972 dune profile with a 35-foot beach berm extending seaward from the dune toe along 3.4 miles in the south segment project area. The placement of 485,900 cubic yards of sand over the barrier island shoreline would stabilize the beach and restore the dune. The sand would be dredged from the southeast end of St. Lucie Shoal, three miles offshore of the project area in state waters. Renourishment would require 177,000 cubic yards of fill at 10-year intervals. The borrow area currently identified for project use and additional areas further along St. Lucie Shoal in federal waters could provide sufficient sand for a 50-year project life. Construction would occur between November 1 and April 30 to avoid impacts to nesting marine turtles. After project construction, a mix of native coastal dune pioneer plants would be planted on the restored dune. Mitigation would involve placement of 0.78 acre of artificial reefs comprised of limestone boulders in areas of suitable, relatively shallow nearshore waters within the project area. In addition to the offshore shoal, upland mines are considered as a source of beach nourishment material. Total project construction costs are estimated at $8 million using the offshore sand source and $12 million using an upland sand source. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore a protective beach lost to historical and ongoing erosion. The re-established beach would: maintain commerce associated with beach recreation; maintain suitable beach habitat for nesting sea turtles, invertebrate species, and shorebirds; and reduce expected storm erosion damages to property and infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging vessels could encounter sea turtles, manatees, and North Atlantic right whales with possible incidental take of sea turtles. Sand removal from the offshore shoal could adversely affect essential fish habitat for coastal pelagic fishes, dolphin and wahoo, and highly migratory species. Dredging and beach placement activities would cause temporary, localized increases in turbidity and sedimentation and could disturb foraging and resting shorebirds. Under the preferred alternative, 0.57 acre of nearshore hardbottom habitat used as foraging habitat by juvenile sea turtles would be buried. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120045, Final EIS--253 pages, Appendices-1,167 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Borrow Pits KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida 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/1011532533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY+SOUTH+BEACH+AND+DUNE+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+ST.+LUCIE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BENTON, KITTITAS, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 1011532532; 15242 AB - PURPOSE: An integrated water resource management plan is proposed as a comprehensive approach to water supply and ecosystem restoration improvements in the Yakima River basin of south-central Washington. The basin encompasses 6,155 square miles and includes portions of Benton, Kittitas, Klickitat, and Yakima counties. The Bureau of Reclamation operates the Yakima Project to provide irrigation water, flood control, power generation, and instream flows for wildlife and recreation. Project features include: five major reservoirs with a total capacity of one million acre-feet, five diversion dams, 420 miles of canals, 1,697 miles of laterals, 30 pumping plants, 144 miles of drains, two power plants, plus fish passage and protection facilities. Anadromous and resident fish populations are seriously depleted due to obstructions, degraded riparian habitat and floodplain functions, and altered streamflows. Demand for irrigation water exceeds supply in dry and drought years, leading to severe rationing for junior water rights holders. This final programmatic EIS examines the proposed integrated plan and a No Action Alternative. The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan is the result of collaboration with stakeholders and includes seven elements: reservoir fish passage, structural and operational changes to existing facilities, surface water storage, groundwater storage, habitat/watershed protection and enhancement, enhanced water conservation, and market reallocation. The plan revives a proposal to build the 450-foot-tall Wymer Dam, creating a 162,500-acre-foot off-channel reservoir on Lmuma Creek which would be filled with water pumped from the Yakima River during high flows. An average of 82,500 acre-feet of its capacity would be used to improve stream flows. The plan also revives options: to replace Bumping Lake Dam with a new dam downstream, increasing its reservoir capacity from 33,700 acre-feet to 190,000 acre-feet; and to build a five-mile pipeline to carry water from Keechelus Reservoir to Kachess Reservoir to reduce flows, improve habitat during high flows, and provide water storage for downstream needs. In addition, the plan proposes constructing a new outlet in Kachess Dam that would be 80 feet lower than the existing outlet, making it possible to withdraw another 200,000 acre-feet of currently inactive storage from the reservoir on the upper Yakima River. Two options are being considered for that project, a gravity-flow tunnel or a pipeline and pump station. Other plan proposals include: modifying spillway gates on Cle Elum Dam to raise its reservoir three feet, increasing available storage by 14,600 acre-feet; modifying Kittitas Reclamation District irrigation canals on the Yakima River to reduce leakage and allow greater flexibility in water supply management; improving Wapatox Canal to allow more efficient distribution of water; studying using pumps for an inter-basin exchange of water with the Columbia River Basin; and construction of fish passages at Cle Elum, Bumping Lake, Keechelus, Kachess, and Tieton dams and improvement of fish passage at Clear Lake Dam on the Tieton River. The integrated plan is the preferred alternative and would be implemented over a period of two to 20 years depending on the availability of funding. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore ecological functions in the river system and provide more reliable and sustainable water resources for the health of the riverine environment, as well as for agricultural, municipal, and domestic needs. Fish passage and habitat/watershed enhancements would provide further benefits for fish and wildlife. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would disturb habitat and cause erosion and sedimentation. There would be few long-term adverse effects excepting habitat losses and shoreline recreational losses at the enlarged Bumping Lake Reservoir and new Wymer Reservoir. The plan would further reduce the water used for generation at the Roza and Chandler hydroelectric plants, cutting annual generation to 82,000 megawatt-hours from 107,000 megawatt-hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plan Act of 1984, Public Law 96-162, and Yakima River Basin Watershed Enhancement Project Act of 1994 (P.L. 103434). JF - EPA number: 120044, 894 pages, March 2, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Conservation KW - Dams KW - Electric Power KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Hoover Power Plan Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-162, Project Authorization KW - Yakima River Basin Watershed Enhancement Project Act of 1994, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011532532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-03-02&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 the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: March 2, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027033459; 15235-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027033449; 15235-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027033437; 15235-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027033024; 15235-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027033015; 15235-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027033015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027032436; 15235-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027032392; 15235-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1027032388; 15235-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032388?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 1027032378; 15240-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Operating requirements for future surface development on oil and gas leases currently held by Berry Petroleum Company on the Ashley National Forest are proposed. The project area covers 25,900 acres in a portion of the Duchesne Ranger District referred to as the South Unit. Berry Petroleum obtained federal mineral leases in this area on or before July 1, 1998 and has submitted a Master Development Plan to drill up to 400 additional oil and gas wells. Current surface disturbance in the project area, as of September 2011, is estimated to be 168 acres, with 22 existing well pads and 39 miles of roads. Four alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue and no additional oil and natural gas exploration or development in the project area would be authorized. The three action alternatives would allow up to 400 wells drilled, but vary in terms of timing of development, number and size of well pads, number of wells per pad, miles of new road construction needed to access the well pads and acres of surface disturbance. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), up to 400 wells would be drilled using a combination of new and existing well pads and conventional drilling. Alternative 3 would require a phased development approach to drilling and Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) would require the use of directional drilling with multiple wells per well pad. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative 4 with modifications for implementation. The selected alternative limits surface development to a maximum of 162 well pads and 356 new wells with closed loop drilling systems to eliminate the need for reserve pits, reduce waste management costs, and reduce environmental risks including the potential for wildlife impacts and ground water contamination. Approximately 57 miles of new access roads would be constructed, and 20 miles of existing roads would be upgraded to reach the well pad sites. Drilling is expected to occur over a five to 20 years, with approximately 20 to 40 wells drilled per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mitigation, monitoring, and operating requirements would minimize impact to surface resources, avoid or reduce conflicts with other activities in the project area, and provide reasonable access to oil and gas resources in the Berry Petroleums existing leases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity would disturb 836 acres and reduce the area of grazing allotments by three percent. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, flammulated owl, three-toed woodpecker, goshawk and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0020D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120042, Volume 1--393 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--368 pages, Record of Decision--35 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032378?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 1027032375; 15240-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Operating requirements for future surface development on oil and gas leases currently held by Berry Petroleum Company on the Ashley National Forest are proposed. The project area covers 25,900 acres in a portion of the Duchesne Ranger District referred to as the South Unit. Berry Petroleum obtained federal mineral leases in this area on or before July 1, 1998 and has submitted a Master Development Plan to drill up to 400 additional oil and gas wells. Current surface disturbance in the project area, as of September 2011, is estimated to be 168 acres, with 22 existing well pads and 39 miles of roads. Four alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue and no additional oil and natural gas exploration or development in the project area would be authorized. The three action alternatives would allow up to 400 wells drilled, but vary in terms of timing of development, number and size of well pads, number of wells per pad, miles of new road construction needed to access the well pads and acres of surface disturbance. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), up to 400 wells would be drilled using a combination of new and existing well pads and conventional drilling. Alternative 3 would require a phased development approach to drilling and Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) would require the use of directional drilling with multiple wells per well pad. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative 4 with modifications for implementation. The selected alternative limits surface development to a maximum of 162 well pads and 356 new wells with closed loop drilling systems to eliminate the need for reserve pits, reduce waste management costs, and reduce environmental risks including the potential for wildlife impacts and ground water contamination. Approximately 57 miles of new access roads would be constructed, and 20 miles of existing roads would be upgraded to reach the well pad sites. Drilling is expected to occur over a five to 20 years, with approximately 20 to 40 wells drilled per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mitigation, monitoring, and operating requirements would minimize impact to surface resources, avoid or reduce conflicts with other activities in the project area, and provide reasonable access to oil and gas resources in the Berry Petroleums existing leases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity would disturb 836 acres and reduce the area of grazing allotments by three percent. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, flammulated owl, three-toed woodpecker, goshawk and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0020D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120042, Volume 1--393 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--368 pages, Record of Decision--35 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1027032375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH UNIT OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DUCHESNE/ROOSEVELT RANGER DISTRICT, ASHLEY NATIONAL FOREST, DUCHESNE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 1011532530; 15240 AB - PURPOSE: Operating requirements for future surface development on oil and gas leases currently held by Berry Petroleum Company on the Ashley National Forest are proposed. The project area covers 25,900 acres in a portion of the Duchesne Ranger District referred to as the South Unit. Berry Petroleum obtained federal mineral leases in this area on or before July 1, 1998 and has submitted a Master Development Plan to drill up to 400 additional oil and gas wells. Current surface disturbance in the project area, as of September 2011, is estimated to be 168 acres, with 22 existing well pads and 39 miles of roads. Four alternatives are evaluated in this final EIS. Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue and no additional oil and natural gas exploration or development in the project area would be authorized. The three action alternatives would allow up to 400 wells drilled, but vary in terms of timing of development, number and size of well pads, number of wells per pad, miles of new road construction needed to access the well pads and acres of surface disturbance. Under the proposed action (Alternative 2), up to 400 wells would be drilled using a combination of new and existing well pads and conventional drilling. Alternative 3 would require a phased development approach to drilling and Alternative 4 (the preferred alternative) would require the use of directional drilling with multiple wells per well pad. The Record of Decision documents the selection of Alternative 4 with modifications for implementation. The selected alternative limits surface development to a maximum of 162 well pads and 356 new wells with closed loop drilling systems to eliminate the need for reserve pits, reduce waste management costs, and reduce environmental risks including the potential for wildlife impacts and ground water contamination. Approximately 57 miles of new access roads would be constructed, and 20 miles of existing roads would be upgraded to reach the well pad sites. Drilling is expected to occur over a five to 20 years, with approximately 20 to 40 wells drilled per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mitigation, monitoring, and operating requirements would minimize impact to surface resources, avoid or reduce conflicts with other activities in the project area, and provide reasonable access to oil and gas resources in the Berry Petroleums existing leases. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development activity would disturb 836 acres and reduce the area of grazing allotments by three percent. Direct impacts to suitable habitat for spotted bat, Townsend's big-eared bat, flammulated owl, three-toed woodpecker, goshawk and greater sage grouse would occur. Some wilderness attribute conditions in the project area would be altered and opportunities for solitude, remoteness, and backcountry recreation would be reduced. LEGAL MANDATES: Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0020D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 120042, Volume 1--393 pages and maps, Volume 2, Appendices--368 pages, Record of Decision--35 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Drilling KW - Exploration KW - Forests KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Pipelines KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wells KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Ashley National Forest KW - Utah KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011532530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOUTH+UNIT+OIL+AND+GAS+DEVELOPMENT+PROJECT%2C+DUCHESNE%2FROOSEVELT+RANGER+DISTRICT%2C+ASHLEY+NATIONAL+FOREST%2C+DUCHESNE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Duchesne, Utah; DA N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EXTENSION OF F-LINE STREETCAR SERVICE TO FORT MASON CENTER, GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, SAN FRANCISCO MARITIME NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK, CALIFORNIA. AN - 1011532525; 15235 AB - PURPOSE: The extension of the F-Market & Wharves Line (F-line) streetcar service from Fishermans Wharf through the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park (SF Maritime NHP) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) to Fort Mason Center, in San Francisco, California is proposed. The GGNRA and the SF Maritime NHP are two separate National Park Service units on San Franciscos northeastern waterfront. SF Maritime NHP is adjacent to the GGNRA, which includes Fort Mason. The 50-acre SF Maritime NHP includes the Maritime Museum and a Senior Center, Aquatic Park, Municipal Pier, Hyde Street Pier, and a collection of historic vessels. The study area is bounded by Mason Street on the east, Bay Street on the south, Fillmore Street on the west and the bayfront, including piers and parklands, on the north. Part of the SF Maritime NHP has been designated as the Aquatic Park National Historic Landmark District (NHLD). Fort Mason, which includes the San Francisco Port of Embarkation NHLD, consists of Upper Fort Mason and Lower Fort Mason. Lower Fort Mason encompasses the historic piers and buildings in which the nonprofit Fort Mason Center is located. SF Maritime NHP has four million visitors each year and the lack of a direct transit connection between the hotels in the Fishermans Wharf area and Fort Mason Center limits the potential of the center as an event destination. This final EIS considers a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) which would extend the F-line by 0.85 miles from Jones Street to Fort Mason Center. Under the preferred action alternative, a 2,500-foot in-street segment along Beach Street would connect to the terminus of the existing F-line at Jones Street. A 750-foot transition segment would cross Van Ness Avenue to the existing 1,500-foot tunnel segment which runs underneath Fort Mason and the Great Meadow. A loop of track would allow for westbound streetcars to turnaround before returning eastbound. The turnaround segment has two options: Alternative 2A or the North Loop would be located in the Fort Mason Center parking lot; and Alternative 2B or the South Loop which would be located in Great Meadow. The extension would include: new rail track; associated features such as signals, crossings, wires and poles; eight to nine new platforms; new designated stops; retrofitting of the historic State Belt Railroad tunnel (Fort Mason Tunnel); and construction of a track turnaround in the Fort Mason Center parking lot or Great Meadow. A determination as to mixed traffic and semi-exclusive options for the in-street segment would be made during the final design phase. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The extension would provide park visitors and transit-dependent residents with high-quality rail transit that improves access and mobility between existing streetcar service at Fishermans Wharf and Fort Mason Center in GGNRA. The streetcar service would provide connection to the regional transit rail services while respecting the settings, context, and resources of two national park destinations and avoiding adverse effects to historic landmarks. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would result in major adverse impacts from noise and vibration to the residential units on the corner of Hyde and Beach Streets and at Ghirardelli Square as well as to hotels along Beach Street and the Maritime Museum. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120037, Final EIS--650 pages, Public Comments Analysis Report--309 pages, February 24, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Historic Districts KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Tunnels (Railroads) KW - California KW - Golden Gate National Recreation Area KW - San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1011532525?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EXTENSION+OF+F-LINE+STREETCAR+SERVICE+TO+FORT+MASON+CENTER%2C+GOLDEN+GATE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+SAN+FRANCISCO+MARITIME+NATIONAL+HISTORICAL+PARK%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, San Francisco, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 24, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-09 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 49 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046777; 15231-3_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046777?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 48 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046776; 15231-3_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046776?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 57 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046775; 15231-3_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 57 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046775?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 45 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046774; 15231-3_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 67 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046696; 15231-3_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 67 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 66 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046694; 15231-3_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 66 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 65 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046690; 15231-3_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 65 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046690?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 64 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046687; 15231-3_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 64 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 63 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046684; 15231-3_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 63 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 62 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046681; 15231-3_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 62 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046681?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 61 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046678; 15231-3_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 61 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 60 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046675; 15231-3_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 60 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046675?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 53 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046672; 15231-3_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046672?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 52 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046669; 15231-3_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 59 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046666; 15231-3_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 59 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 51 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046665; 15231-3_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 58 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046662; 15231-3_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 58 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046662?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 50 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046660; 15231-3_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 56 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046654; 15231-3_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 55 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046651; 15231-3_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 54 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046649; 15231-3_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 44 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046638; 15231-3_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 43 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046637; 15231-3_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046637?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 41 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046635; 15231-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046635?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 34 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046634; 15231-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 33 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046633; 15231-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 32 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046632; 15231-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 31 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046631; 15231-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 30 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046630; 15231-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 35 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046626; 15231-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 40 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046625; 15231-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 39 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046623; 15231-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 38 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046621; 15231-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 22 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046619; 15231-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 37 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046618; 15231-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046618?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 21 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046616; 15231-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046616?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 47 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046615; 15231-3_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 20 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046614; 15231-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 46 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046613; 15231-3_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 19 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046611; 15231-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046611?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 29 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046610; 15231-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 18 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046608; 15231-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 28 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046607; 15231-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 27 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046606; 15231-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046606?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 17 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046605; 15231-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 16 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046603; 15231-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046603?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 36 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046602; 15231-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046602?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 25 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046595; 15231-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 24 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046592; 15231-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046592?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046589; 15231-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046585; 15231-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046583; 15231-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046580; 15231-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046580?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046577; 15231-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046575; 15231-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046575?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046572; 15231-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046470; 15231-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046465; 15231-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046461; 15231-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046458; 15231-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 69 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046411; 15231-3_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 69 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046375; 15231-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 69] T2 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1020046370; 15231-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1020046370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RESTORATION DESIGN ENERGY PROJECT, ARIZONA. AN - 1009503335; 15231 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of seven resource management plans to identify lands across Arizona that may be suitable for renewable energy development and to establish a baseline set of environmental protection measures for such projects is proposed. Current land use plans generally do not provide guidance on where development should occur, nor do they address such factors as topography, distance to transmission and load, land ownership patterns and availability, tribal concerns, and environmental and cultural resource constraints. Through the Restoration Design Energy Project (RDEP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is exploring opportunities to reuse previously disturbed sites such as brownfields, landfills, retired agricultural lands, or abandoned mines, and lands with low resource sensitivity and few environmental conflicts. Sixty-four such sites on federal, state, municipal, and private lands have been identified. The BLM is proposing to identify Renewable Energy Development Areas (REDAs) that may be suitable for the development of utility- or distributed-scale solar and wind facilities, as well as one Solar Energy Zone (SEZ) for utility-scale solar development. The RDEP seeks to further refine and build upon the decisions being analyzed in the programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States and proposes an additional SEZ called Agua Caliente in southwestern Arizona. This draft EIS evaluates six action alternatives and a No Action Alternative. Under Alternative 1, a maximal amount of 321,500 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 20,600 acres. Under Alternative 2, development would be focused on 218,600 acres of lands within five miles of designated utility corridors and existing or certified transmission lines. The footprint of the Agua Caliente SEZ would be reduced to 6,770 acres. Alternative 3 would keep energy generation near the point of demand, such as cities, towns, or industrial centers. Alternative 4 proposes additional water protection zones in areas with known water supply issues. Alternative 5 would focus development on lands which prior planning processes have concluded are suitable for disposal. A minimal amount of 43,700 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and no new SEZ would be proposed. Alternative 6 is the preferred alternative and would incorporate all of the concepts, issues, and protections from the other five alternatives into a collaborative-based REDA process. A total of 237,100 acres of BLM-administered land would be identified as REDAs and the Agua Caliente SEZ footprint would encompass 6,770 acres. The RDEP EIS will not eliminate the need for site-specific environmental review for renewable energy development proposals. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The REDAs would identify where solar and wind energy development is likely to be compatible with resource objectives, and management actions and design features would bring consistency and efficiency to the BLMs authorization process. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Additional renewable energy development would contribute to cumulative impacts to air quality, soils, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. Loss of open space could result in an overall loss of recreation opportunities, a degradation of visual resources, and an overall changing of the landscape. The intensive coverage of land surface required by solar facilities would render the land used incompatible for most other uses, including grazing, mineral development, and recreation. Cultural resources, including archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties, would be subject to loss during construction of solar and wind energy facilities and associated roads and transmission lines. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft programmatic EIS on Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States, see 10-0310D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 120033, Draft EIS--669 pages, Appendices--360 pages, February 17, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: BLM/AZ/PL-12/004 KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Management KW - Land Use KW - Property Disposition KW - Solar Energy KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Arizona KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1009503335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+ARIZONA.&rft.title=RESTORATION+DESIGN+ENERGY+PROJECT%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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 17, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-26 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 17 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744017; 15220-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 16 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744016; 15220-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 15 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744015; 15220-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744015?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 14 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744014; 15220-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744014?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 13 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744012; 15220-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 12 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744011; 15220-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 11 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744010; 15220-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 10 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744009; 15220-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 9 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012744008; 15220-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 8 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743998; 15220-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 7 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743996; 15220-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743996?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 6 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743995; 15220-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 5 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743994; 15220-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743979; 15220-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743978; 15220-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743967; 15220-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012743950; 15220-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. AN - 1012743325; 15217-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources is proposed. The study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective area of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie basins. This draft programmatic EIS reconsiders the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) programmatic EIS which made two million acres of public land available for potential development of oil shale and 430,686 acres of public land available for potential development of tar sands. Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will consider amending the applicable Resource Management Plans to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be available for such application. Four alternatives for allocation of oil shale (two of these include subalternatives), and four analogous alternatives for allocation of tar sands are analyzed. Alternative 2(b), which is the preferred alternative for allocation of oil shale resources, would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing, but only for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, would be specified in the RD&D lease. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for allocation of tar sands resources and would make 91,045 acres in eastern Utah available for application for commercial leasing. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not amend land use plans and the lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain available. Alternative 2(a) would exclude certain lands from leasing and would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing. Alternative 3 would limit public lands available for commercial leasing to the those lands encompassed by existing oil shale RD&D leases and their associated preference right lease acreage, plus the areas encompassed by the three RD&D lease applications currently under review. Under this alternative, 32,640 acres would be open for potential future leasing of oil shale. For the tar sands resources under Alternative 3, the lands identified as available for application for commercial leasing would be limited to those lands in the Vernal, Utah planning area, for which there is a pending tar sands lease application (2,100 acres). Alternative 4(a) would exclude certain lands from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, similar to Alternative 2 and would designate acreage less than two million acres as available for future consideration for leasing for commercial oil shale leasing and less than 430,686 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Alternative 4(b) would open the same acreage as those lands opened in Alternative 4(a), but only for RD&D leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would make 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming available for research. This focus on RD&D projects before committing to broad-scale commercial development would provide for a clearer understanding of the implications of development of oil shale for water quality and quantity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future development of commercial oil shale and tar sands projects would displace existing land uses. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation. Mining would destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Potential project-related impacts may include reduced surface water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, modification of surface and groundwater flow, and contamination of surface water or groundwater due to accidental releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. Mining and related road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), 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 abstracts of the original OSTS draft and final programmatic EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120019, Volume 1--532 pages, Volume 2--416 pages, Volume 3--586 pages, Volume 4--450 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-01 KW - Exploration KW - Geology KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Research KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance 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/1012743325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. AN - 1012743310; 15217-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources is proposed. The study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective area of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie basins. This draft programmatic EIS reconsiders the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) programmatic EIS which made two million acres of public land available for potential development of oil shale and 430,686 acres of public land available for potential development of tar sands. Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will consider amending the applicable Resource Management Plans to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be available for such application. Four alternatives for allocation of oil shale (two of these include subalternatives), and four analogous alternatives for allocation of tar sands are analyzed. Alternative 2(b), which is the preferred alternative for allocation of oil shale resources, would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing, but only for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, would be specified in the RD&D lease. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for allocation of tar sands resources and would make 91,045 acres in eastern Utah available for application for commercial leasing. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not amend land use plans and the lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain available. Alternative 2(a) would exclude certain lands from leasing and would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing. Alternative 3 would limit public lands available for commercial leasing to the those lands encompassed by existing oil shale RD&D leases and their associated preference right lease acreage, plus the areas encompassed by the three RD&D lease applications currently under review. Under this alternative, 32,640 acres would be open for potential future leasing of oil shale. For the tar sands resources under Alternative 3, the lands identified as available for application for commercial leasing would be limited to those lands in the Vernal, Utah planning area, for which there is a pending tar sands lease application (2,100 acres). Alternative 4(a) would exclude certain lands from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, similar to Alternative 2 and would designate acreage less than two million acres as available for future consideration for leasing for commercial oil shale leasing and less than 430,686 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Alternative 4(b) would open the same acreage as those lands opened in Alternative 4(a), but only for RD&D leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would make 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming available for research. This focus on RD&D projects before committing to broad-scale commercial development would provide for a clearer understanding of the implications of development of oil shale for water quality and quantity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future development of commercial oil shale and tar sands projects would displace existing land uses. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation. Mining would destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Potential project-related impacts may include reduced surface water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, modification of surface and groundwater flow, and contamination of surface water or groundwater due to accidental releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. Mining and related road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), 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 abstracts of the original OSTS draft and final programmatic EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120019, Volume 1--532 pages, Volume 2--416 pages, Volume 3--586 pages, Volume 4--450 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-01 KW - Exploration KW - Geology KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Research KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance 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/1012743310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. AN - 1012743107; 15217-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources is proposed. The study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective area of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie basins. This draft programmatic EIS reconsiders the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) programmatic EIS which made two million acres of public land available for potential development of oil shale and 430,686 acres of public land available for potential development of tar sands. Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will consider amending the applicable Resource Management Plans to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be available for such application. Four alternatives for allocation of oil shale (two of these include subalternatives), and four analogous alternatives for allocation of tar sands are analyzed. Alternative 2(b), which is the preferred alternative for allocation of oil shale resources, would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing, but only for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, would be specified in the RD&D lease. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for allocation of tar sands resources and would make 91,045 acres in eastern Utah available for application for commercial leasing. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not amend land use plans and the lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain available. Alternative 2(a) would exclude certain lands from leasing and would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing. Alternative 3 would limit public lands available for commercial leasing to the those lands encompassed by existing oil shale RD&D leases and their associated preference right lease acreage, plus the areas encompassed by the three RD&D lease applications currently under review. Under this alternative, 32,640 acres would be open for potential future leasing of oil shale. For the tar sands resources under Alternative 3, the lands identified as available for application for commercial leasing would be limited to those lands in the Vernal, Utah planning area, for which there is a pending tar sands lease application (2,100 acres). Alternative 4(a) would exclude certain lands from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, similar to Alternative 2 and would designate acreage less than two million acres as available for future consideration for leasing for commercial oil shale leasing and less than 430,686 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Alternative 4(b) would open the same acreage as those lands opened in Alternative 4(a), but only for RD&D leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would make 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming available for research. This focus on RD&D projects before committing to broad-scale commercial development would provide for a clearer understanding of the implications of development of oil shale for water quality and quantity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future development of commercial oil shale and tar sands projects would displace existing land uses. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation. Mining would destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Potential project-related impacts may include reduced surface water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, modification of surface and groundwater flow, and contamination of surface water or groundwater due to accidental releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. Mining and related road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), 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 abstracts of the original OSTS draft and final programmatic EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120019, Volume 1--532 pages, Volume 2--416 pages, Volume 3--586 pages, Volume 4--450 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-01 KW - Exploration KW - Geology KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Research KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance 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/1012743107?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - ALLOCATION OF OIL SHALE AND TAR SANDS RESOURCES ON LANDS ADMINISTERED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT IN COLORADO, UTAH, AND WYOMING. AN - 1012742694; 15217-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The amendment of 10 land use plans in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to describe those areas that will be open and those that will be closed to application for commercial leasing, exploration, and development of oil shale and tar sands resources is proposed. The study area for the oil shale resources includes the most geologically prospective area of the Green River Formation located in the Piceance, Uinta, Green River, and Washakie basins. This draft programmatic EIS reconsiders the land allocations analyzed in the 2008 Oil Shale and Tar Sands (OSTS) programmatic EIS which made two million acres of public land available for potential development of oil shale and 430,686 acres of public land available for potential development of tar sands. Specifically, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will consider amending the applicable Resource Management Plans to specify whether any areas in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming currently open for application for future leasing and development of oil shale or tar sands should not be available for such application. Four alternatives for allocation of oil shale (two of these include subalternatives), and four analogous alternatives for allocation of tar sands are analyzed. Alternative 2(b), which is the preferred alternative for allocation of oil shale resources, would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing, but only for research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) leases. The BLM would issue a commercial lease only when a lessee satisfies the conditions of its RD&D lease and the regulations for conversion to a commercial lease. The preference right acreage, if any, would be specified in the RD&D lease. Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative for allocation of tar sands resources and would make 91,045 acres in eastern Utah available for application for commercial leasing. Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would not amend land use plans and the lands available for lease under the 2008 land use plan amendment decisions would remain available. Alternative 2(a) would exclude certain lands from leasing and would make 461,965 acres available for future consideration for commercial oil shale leasing. Alternative 3 would limit public lands available for commercial leasing to the those lands encompassed by existing oil shale RD&D leases and their associated preference right lease acreage, plus the areas encompassed by the three RD&D lease applications currently under review. Under this alternative, 32,640 acres would be open for potential future leasing of oil shale. For the tar sands resources under Alternative 3, the lands identified as available for application for commercial leasing would be limited to those lands in the Vernal, Utah planning area, for which there is a pending tar sands lease application (2,100 acres). Alternative 4(a) would exclude certain lands from commercial oil shale or tar sands leasing, similar to Alternative 2 and would designate acreage less than two million acres as available for future consideration for leasing for commercial oil shale leasing and less than 430,686 acres as available for application for commercial tar sands leasing. Alternative 4(b) would open the same acreage as those lands opened in Alternative 4(a), but only for RD&D leases. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The preferred alternative would make 35,308 acres in Colorado, 252,181 acres in Utah, and 174,476 acres in Wyoming available for research. This focus on RD&D projects before committing to broad-scale commercial development would provide for a clearer understanding of the implications of development of oil shale for water quality and quantity. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Future development of commercial oil shale and tar sands projects would displace existing land uses. Vegetation and soils would be removed, eliminating the associated wildlife habitat and exacerbating erosion and stream sedimentation. Mining would destroy paleontological and cultural resources in some areas. Potential project-related impacts may include reduced surface water quality due to erosion and sedimentation, dewatering of local aquifers, modification of surface and groundwater flow, and contamination of surface water or groundwater due to accidental releases of hazardous materials and by-products of retorting. Mining and related road and transmission line and pipeline construction would mar visual aesthetics and otherwise degrade recreational experiences in the affected areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-78), 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 abstracts of the original OSTS draft and final programmatic EISs, see 08-0035D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0382F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120019, Volume 1--532 pages, Volume 2--416 pages, Volume 3--586 pages, Volume 4--450 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 12-01 KW - Exploration KW - Geology KW - Hydrocarbons KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Oil Shale KW - Paleontological Sites KW - Research KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Utah KW - Wyoming KW - Combined Hydrocarbon Leasing Act of 1981, Compliance 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/1012742694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%2C+AND+WYOMING.&rft.title=ALLOCATION+OF+OIL+SHALE+AND+TAR+SANDS+RESOURCES+ON+LANDS+ADMINISTERED+BY+THE+BUREAU+OF+LAND+MANAGEMENT+IN+COLORADO%2C+UTAH%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, Lakewood, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 18 of 18] T2 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1012742492; 15220-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HB IN-SITU SOLUTION MINING PROJECT, EDDY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 1008977555; 15220 AB - PURPOSE: Construction and operation of an in-situ solution mine in the abandoned HB Potash Mine located 20 miles northeast of the city of Carlsbad in Eddy County, New Mexico are proposed. The 38,453-acre project area includes 31,439 acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, 4,954 acres managed by the State of New Mexico, and 2,060 acres which are privately owned. Instead of excavating the remaining potash in the underground pillars and walls of the inactive workings, Intrepid Potash, Inc. (Intrepid) would extract the potash by injecting saturated saline water into the inactive mine workings and extracting a mineral-rich solution. This mineral-rich solution would be pumped to the surface and transported to evaporation ponds. Once the solution evaporates in the ponds, the potassium-bearing salts would be harvested from the ponds and transported to a newly constructed mill for ore refinement. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, were analyzed in the draft EIS of April 2011. This final EIS identifies the preferred alternative which includes selected aspects of the proposed action (Alternative A), the supplemental water sources alternative (Alternative B), and the buried pipelines alternative (Alternative C). Under the preferred alternative, Intrepids revised HB In-Situ Solution Mine operation and closure plan would be approved, including permits to drill new water supply, injection, extraction, and monitoring wells. The overall footprint of the evaporation ponds would increase by 62 acres. There would be minor changes to the layout of the pipelines in the project area to avoid karst features and 68 percent of the pipeline bundles would be buried. Within the project area, four Rustler Formation wells would be developed and additional water sources from Intrepids Caprock wells east of the project area would be used to supplement the required water quantity with water from the Capitan Aquifer whenever the Rustler water supply is inadequate to meet the optimum filling rate of the flood pools. A new pipeline from the Caprock wells would be installed along an alignment designed to avoid sand dune lizard habitat and a maximum of 2,267 gallons per minute of groundwater would be pumped from the combined sources. The proposed potash mine would operate for 28 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The in-situ solution mine would extract the maximum technically feasible quantity of potash from inactive workings (HB Eddy, HB South, HB North, and HB Crescent) in accordance with mining and safety regulations. Federal mineral royalties would amount to $2.3 million to $4.7 million annually. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would disturb 1,331 acres with potential for erosion, water contamination, and decreased groundwater contributions to the Pecos River. Livestock grazing would be impacted by the loss of 148 animal unit months, mostly on private land. Additional subsidence of up to 0.6 foot could occur in the mined ore zone. Direct disturbance and groundwater drawdown would affect mesquite upland scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and woody riparian vegetation with potential consequences for bat species, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and sand dune lizard. Pumping of the Rustler Formation could impact caves and karst features in and near the project area. Aboveground pipelines would have the potential to block, divert, and concentrate overland storm water runoff. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377), and Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C. 21a). JF - EPA number: 120022, 562 pages, February 3, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: DOI-BLM-NM-P020-2011-498-EIS KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Pipelines KW - Subsidence KW - Vegetation KW - Water Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Project Authorization KW - Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1008977555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-02-03&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=HB+IN-SITU+SOLUTION+MINING+PROJECT%2C+EDDY+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 3, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1012744034; 15214-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Expanded mining and mineral exploration activities on public lands at the existing Hycroft Mine in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management received a revised plan of operations from Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI) in April 2010 which includes the expansion of HRDIs existing precious metal mining operation and project boundary. The existing project boundary encompasses 8,858 acres of public and private land 55 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. The proposed expansion would add 5,895 acres to bring the total project area to 14,753 acres. Key issues identified through scoping include the potential for waste rock, heap leach or pit walls to produce acid rock drainage or heavy metals; and potential visual impacts to the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and the Black Rock Wilderness Area. This draft EIS analyzes the proposed action and a No Action Alternative. In addition to the expansion of the plan boundary and use of the entire project area for exploration, the proposed action would include: incorporation of five rights-of-way; expansion of four open pits; backfilling of all or portions of three open pits; a new dispatch center and expanded maintenance facilities; expansion of haul and secondary roads, waste rock facilities, and heap leach facilities; expansion and construction of fueling areas; the operation a portable crusher at the south heap leach facility; construction, operation, and then closure of the south heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe process plant, and solution ponds; relocation of a segment of the Seven Troughs Road; expansion of the existing refinery and the Brimstone Merrill-Crowe plant; storm water diversions and controls; closure of the existing landfill and construction of a new landfill; two new wells; the relocation and upgrade of substations and extension of power lines; construction of growth media stockpiles; and reclamation of the project consistent with the proposed reclamation plan. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with the inclusion of identified mitigation measures for cultural resources and impacts to golden eagle, burrowing owl, and bats in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the mine life by12 years and employment by 337 mine personnel. Implementation is expected to result in the extraction and production of 2.5 million ounces of gold and 49.3 million ounces of silver. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 2,172 acres could accelerate soil erosion rates and would remove 46 acres of potential habitat for Crosby's buckwheat, including five occupied acres. Up to 441 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat associated with the open pit would not be reclaimed. The project would remove migratory bird and raptor habitat and destroy active bat hibernacula. Greater sage-grouse and burrowing owl individuals and habitat could be impacted. Emissions of particulate matter would be generated by numerous processes for the life of the project. Historic roads and routes would be closed and 21 sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places could be adversely impacted. The project would result in visual impacts to the Noble and Applegate trails and an additional 247 truck deliveries per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120016, 446 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-W030-2011-0001-EIS KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Landfills KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wells KW - Wildlife 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/1012744034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1012744033; 15214-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Expanded mining and mineral exploration activities on public lands at the existing Hycroft Mine in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management received a revised plan of operations from Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI) in April 2010 which includes the expansion of HRDIs existing precious metal mining operation and project boundary. The existing project boundary encompasses 8,858 acres of public and private land 55 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. The proposed expansion would add 5,895 acres to bring the total project area to 14,753 acres. Key issues identified through scoping include the potential for waste rock, heap leach or pit walls to produce acid rock drainage or heavy metals; and potential visual impacts to the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and the Black Rock Wilderness Area. This draft EIS analyzes the proposed action and a No Action Alternative. In addition to the expansion of the plan boundary and use of the entire project area for exploration, the proposed action would include: incorporation of five rights-of-way; expansion of four open pits; backfilling of all or portions of three open pits; a new dispatch center and expanded maintenance facilities; expansion of haul and secondary roads, waste rock facilities, and heap leach facilities; expansion and construction of fueling areas; the operation a portable crusher at the south heap leach facility; construction, operation, and then closure of the south heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe process plant, and solution ponds; relocation of a segment of the Seven Troughs Road; expansion of the existing refinery and the Brimstone Merrill-Crowe plant; storm water diversions and controls; closure of the existing landfill and construction of a new landfill; two new wells; the relocation and upgrade of substations and extension of power lines; construction of growth media stockpiles; and reclamation of the project consistent with the proposed reclamation plan. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with the inclusion of identified mitigation measures for cultural resources and impacts to golden eagle, burrowing owl, and bats in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the mine life by12 years and employment by 337 mine personnel. Implementation is expected to result in the extraction and production of 2.5 million ounces of gold and 49.3 million ounces of silver. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 2,172 acres could accelerate soil erosion rates and would remove 46 acres of potential habitat for Crosby's buckwheat, including five occupied acres. Up to 441 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat associated with the open pit would not be reclaimed. The project would remove migratory bird and raptor habitat and destroy active bat hibernacula. Greater sage-grouse and burrowing owl individuals and habitat could be impacted. Emissions of particulate matter would be generated by numerous processes for the life of the project. Historic roads and routes would be closed and 21 sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places could be adversely impacted. The project would result in visual impacts to the Noble and Applegate trails and an additional 247 truck deliveries per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120016, 446 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-W030-2011-0001-EIS KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Landfills KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wells KW - Wildlife 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/1012744033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1012742867; 15214-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Expanded mining and mineral exploration activities on public lands at the existing Hycroft Mine in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management received a revised plan of operations from Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI) in April 2010 which includes the expansion of HRDIs existing precious metal mining operation and project boundary. The existing project boundary encompasses 8,858 acres of public and private land 55 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. The proposed expansion would add 5,895 acres to bring the total project area to 14,753 acres. Key issues identified through scoping include the potential for waste rock, heap leach or pit walls to produce acid rock drainage or heavy metals; and potential visual impacts to the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and the Black Rock Wilderness Area. This draft EIS analyzes the proposed action and a No Action Alternative. In addition to the expansion of the plan boundary and use of the entire project area for exploration, the proposed action would include: incorporation of five rights-of-way; expansion of four open pits; backfilling of all or portions of three open pits; a new dispatch center and expanded maintenance facilities; expansion of haul and secondary roads, waste rock facilities, and heap leach facilities; expansion and construction of fueling areas; the operation a portable crusher at the south heap leach facility; construction, operation, and then closure of the south heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe process plant, and solution ponds; relocation of a segment of the Seven Troughs Road; expansion of the existing refinery and the Brimstone Merrill-Crowe plant; storm water diversions and controls; closure of the existing landfill and construction of a new landfill; two new wells; the relocation and upgrade of substations and extension of power lines; construction of growth media stockpiles; and reclamation of the project consistent with the proposed reclamation plan. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with the inclusion of identified mitigation measures for cultural resources and impacts to golden eagle, burrowing owl, and bats in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the mine life by12 years and employment by 337 mine personnel. Implementation is expected to result in the extraction and production of 2.5 million ounces of gold and 49.3 million ounces of silver. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 2,172 acres could accelerate soil erosion rates and would remove 46 acres of potential habitat for Crosby's buckwheat, including five occupied acres. Up to 441 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat associated with the open pit would not be reclaimed. The project would remove migratory bird and raptor habitat and destroy active bat hibernacula. Greater sage-grouse and burrowing owl individuals and habitat could be impacted. Emissions of particulate matter would be generated by numerous processes for the life of the project. Historic roads and routes would be closed and 21 sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places could be adversely impacted. The project would result in visual impacts to the Noble and Applegate trails and an additional 247 truck deliveries per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120016, 446 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-W030-2011-0001-EIS KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Landfills KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wells KW - Wildlife 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/1012742867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - HYCROFT MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, HUMBOLDT AND PERSHING COUNTIES, NEVADA. AN - 1012742132; 15214-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Expanded mining and mineral exploration activities on public lands at the existing Hycroft Mine in Humboldt and Pershing Counties, Nevada are proposed. The Bureau of Land Management received a revised plan of operations from Hycroft Resources and Development, Inc. (HRDI) in April 2010 which includes the expansion of HRDIs existing precious metal mining operation and project boundary. The existing project boundary encompasses 8,858 acres of public and private land 55 miles west of Winnemucca, Nevada. The proposed expansion would add 5,895 acres to bring the total project area to 14,753 acres. Key issues identified through scoping include the potential for waste rock, heap leach or pit walls to produce acid rock drainage or heavy metals; and potential visual impacts to the Black Rock Desert-High Rock Canyon-Emigrant Trails National Conservation Area and the Black Rock Wilderness Area. This draft EIS analyzes the proposed action and a No Action Alternative. In addition to the expansion of the plan boundary and use of the entire project area for exploration, the proposed action would include: incorporation of five rights-of-way; expansion of four open pits; backfilling of all or portions of three open pits; a new dispatch center and expanded maintenance facilities; expansion of haul and secondary roads, waste rock facilities, and heap leach facilities; expansion and construction of fueling areas; the operation a portable crusher at the south heap leach facility; construction, operation, and then closure of the south heap leach facility, Merrill-Crowe process plant, and solution ponds; relocation of a segment of the Seven Troughs Road; expansion of the existing refinery and the Brimstone Merrill-Crowe plant; storm water diversions and controls; closure of the existing landfill and construction of a new landfill; two new wells; the relocation and upgrade of substations and extension of power lines; construction of growth media stockpiles; and reclamation of the project consistent with the proposed reclamation plan. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with the inclusion of identified mitigation measures for cultural resources and impacts to golden eagle, burrowing owl, and bats in the project area. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the mine life by12 years and employment by 337 mine personnel. Implementation is expected to result in the extraction and production of 2.5 million ounces of gold and 49.3 million ounces of silver. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New surface disturbance of 2,172 acres could accelerate soil erosion rates and would remove 46 acres of potential habitat for Crosby's buckwheat, including five occupied acres. Up to 441 acres of terrestrial wildlife habitat associated with the open pit would not be reclaimed. The project would remove migratory bird and raptor habitat and destroy active bat hibernacula. Greater sage-grouse and burrowing owl individuals and habitat could be impacted. Emissions of particulate matter would be generated by numerous processes for the life of the project. Historic roads and routes would be closed and 21 sites eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places could be adversely impacted. The project would result in visual impacts to the Noble and Applegate trails and an additional 247 truck deliveries per month. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120016, 446 pages, January 27, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM-NV-W030-2011-0001-EIS KW - Birds KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Employment KW - Erosion KW - Exploration KW - Landfills KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Waste Management KW - Wells KW - Wildlife 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/1012742132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+COUNTIES%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=HYCROFT+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+HUMBOLDT+AND+PERSHING+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 - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 27, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - GEN T1 - Bureau of Indian Education 2010-2011 (Based on SY 2009-2010 Data) Special Education Indicator Performance AN - 1697501698; ED554002 AB - This report presents Special Education Indicator Performance data tables for 174 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; and (10) Child Find. Data include target percentage, school results, and if the target was met (yes or no). Y1 - 2012/01/24/ PY - 2012 DA - 2012 Jan 24 SP - 174 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 - School Statistics KW - Eligibility KW - Student Placement KW - Expulsion KW - Parent Participation KW - Mathematics Tests KW - School Effectiveness 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/1697501698?accountid=14244 LA - English DB - ERIC N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 964164309; 15206 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/964164309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 964164252; 15203 AB - PURPOSE: The offer for lease of certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks located in the Central Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources is proposed. Lease Sales 216 and 222 are the last remaining sales scheduled for the Central Gulf Planning Area in the 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program. Consolidated Lease Sale 216/222 would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. This final supplemental EIS incorporates the latest available information following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill of 2010. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), all unleased blocks within the CPA would be offered for lease with the exception of: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Gulf of Mexico Eastern Planning Area and are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line that are under an existing moratorium until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The CPA sale area encompasses 63 million acres and approximately 38.6 million acres are currently unleased. Alternative B would exclude unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. Alternative C would exclude unleased blocks within 15 miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, coast. The proposed action includes existing regulations and proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks. Eight lease stipulations are proposed: the topographic features stipulation, the live bottom stipulation, the military areas stipulation, the evacuation stipulation, the coordination stipulation, the blocks south of Baldwin County stipulation, the protected species stipulation, and the Law of the Sea Convention royalty payment stipulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed lease sale is projected to develop 0.8 to 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 to 6.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Normal development of the leased resources is expected to have minimal impacts. Increased turbidity resulting from pipeline installation, navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities could affect coastal waters. Offshore water impacts would result from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, produced water, and residual chemicals. Accidental events have the potential to impact benthic organisms, marine mammals, sea turtles, federally protected mouse species, coastal and marine birds, the Gulf sturgeon, other fish and essential fish habitat, commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first draft supplement, see 07-0013D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0140D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120004, Volume I-640 pages, Volume II-596 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-058 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/964164252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-05 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 56 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012744006; 15204-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012744006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 55 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743993; 15204-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743993?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 54 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743991; 15204-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 53 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743990; 15204-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743990?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 50 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743986; 15204-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 49 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743985; 15204-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743985?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 48 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743983; 15204-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743983?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 47 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743982; 15204-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 46 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743980; 15204-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743980?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 45 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743963; 15204-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 44 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743962; 15204-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 43 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743960; 15204-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 42 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743959; 15204-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743959?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 41 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743958; 15204-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743958?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 40 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743957; 15204-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 31 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743955; 15204-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743955?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 30 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743954; 15204-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743954?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 29 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743953; 15204-6_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743953?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 16 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743948; 15204-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 15 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743947; 15204-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 14 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743946; 15204-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743946?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 13 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743944; 15204-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 12 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743943; 15204-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 21 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743929; 15204-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743929?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 28 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743927; 15204-6_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 28 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743927?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 20 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743926; 15204-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743926?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 27 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743924; 15204-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 19 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743923; 15204-6_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 26 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743921; 15204-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743921?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 25 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743918; 15204-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 17 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743917; 15204-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743917?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 33 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743867; 15204-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 39 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743859; 15204-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 38 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743854; 15204-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743854?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 37 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743848; 15204-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 36 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743843; 15204-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 35 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743838; 15204-6_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 23 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743832; 15204-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743832?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743272; 15206-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743268; 15206-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743268?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743264; 15206-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743258; 15206-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743252; 15206-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743247; 15206-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 11 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743245; 15204-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743241; 15206-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743241?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743236; 15206-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012743231; 15206-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012743170; 15208-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743170?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012743165; 15208-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743165?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012743161; 15208-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012743154; 15208-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743154?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012743150; 15208-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 1 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743082; 15204-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 10 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743077; 15204-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 9 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743068; 15204-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743068?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 8 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743056; 15204-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 7 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743041; 15204-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 5 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743029; 15204-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 6 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743024; 15204-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 4 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012743009; 15204-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012743009?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742995; 15206-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012742991; 15208-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742991?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742986; 15206-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742856; 15206-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742848; 15206-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 3 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012742847; 15204-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742847?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. [Part 2 of 56] T2 - ALASKA STAND ALONE GAS PIPELINE, FROM ALASKA'S NORTH SLOPE TO FAIRBANKS, ANCHORAGE AND THE COOK INLET AREA OF ALASKA. AN - 1012742835; 15204-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of a 737-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline to transport natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) from Alaskas North Slope to Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area of Alaska are proposed. The Alaska Stand Alone Pipeline Project would connect with the central gas facility (CGF) near Prudhoe Bay, provide for connection to a Fairbanks natural gas distribution system, and connect to ENSTAR Natural Gas Companys (ENSTAR) pipeline system located in southcentral Alaska (Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area). The residential and commercial needs of southcentral Alaska are currently served by the Cook Inlet gas fields, but these existing fields cannot sustain the areas needs without some form of supply expansion. Fairbanks has no long-term source of fuel other than oil. Discovered technically recoverable natural gas resources on the Alaska North Slope are estimated to be about 35 trillion cubic feet (TCF). The proposed pipeline would extend from near Prudhoe Bay to Point MacKenzie and would be developed in the general vicinity of the Dalton and Parks Highway Corridors. Approximately 82 percent of the proposed project route would be co-located with or would closely parallel existing pipeline or highway right-of-way (ROW). Stream crossings would be constructed using one of four methods: open-cut, open-cut isolation, trenchless technology using horizontal directional drilling, or bridge crossings. One new pipeline suspension bridge could be constructed across the Yukon River. Up to 500 million standard cubic feet per day of natural gas and NGLs would be transported under operating pressure of 2,500 pounds per square inch. Additionally, a new 12-inch-diameter lateral pipeline would extend approximately 34 miles from Dunbar east to Fairbanks. Other project facilities would include: a North Slope gas conditioning facility, a straddle and gas off-take facility near Dunbar, a Cook Inlet NGL extraction plant facility, one or two compressor stations, three meter stations, 37 mainline valves at intervals not greater than 20 miles, operations and maintenance buildings, construction camps, pipeline yards and material sites. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative and one pipeline route variation which would cross seven miles within Denali National Park and Preserve (NPP). Overall, the Denali NPP Route Variation would be of similar length and would stay within the Parks Highway ROW. None of the Denali NPP lands that would be crossed are designated wilderness areas. Should federal legislation allow within the time constraints of the project, the Denali NPP Route Variation is a reasonable alternative that could minimize visual impacts in the area of Denali NPP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would provide a long-term, stable supply of natural gas and NGLs from existing reserves within North Slope gas fields to markets in the Fairbanks, Anchorage and the Cook Inlet area by 2019. The gas and NGLs would be used to heat homes, business and institutions, to generate electrical power, and for potential industrial uses. The utilization of proven gas supplies that are readily available on the North Slope would provide economic benefit to the State of Alaska through royalties and taxes. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Permanent easement and ROWs of 4,063 acres would be retained in a non-forested condition and vegetation removal could cause erosion and sedimentation. The proposed pipeline would affect 5,387 acres of wetlands, but impacts would be reduced substantially by co-locating the ROW with existing utility corridors. The pipeline would cross 495 waterways and drainages and the loss of riparian vegetation on stream banks may contribute to increased erosion and instability resulting in reduced fish habitat and water quality. Project-related vessel activity could disturb marine mammals, polar bear, and spectacled eider. Habitat loss would impact tree nesting birds. Operational impacts to wildlife would be negligible with the exception of increased road use and development that could increase vehicle collisions with wildlife. South of the Yukon River, the proposed Project would cross two seismic zones. Construction, operation, and maintenance activities would have both direct and indirect effects on subsistence resources, resource use areas, and subsistence users. LEGAL MANDATES: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-487), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120006, Volume I--601 pages, Volume II--624 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Energy Reserves KW - Erosion KW - Fisheries KW - Forests KW - Marine Mammals KW - National Parks KW - Natural Gas KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alaska KW - Denali National Park and Preserve KW - Yukon River KW - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.title=ALASKA+STAND+ALONE+GAS+PIPELINE%2C+FROM+ALASKA%27S+NORTH+SLOPE+TO+FAIRBANKS%2C+ANCHORAGE+AND+THE+COOK+INLET+AREA+OF+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 1 of 2] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 1012742721; 15203-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The offer for lease of certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks located in the Central Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources is proposed. Lease Sales 216 and 222 are the last remaining sales scheduled for the Central Gulf Planning Area in the 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program. Consolidated Lease Sale 216/222 would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. This final supplemental EIS incorporates the latest available information following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill of 2010. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), all unleased blocks within the CPA would be offered for lease with the exception of: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Gulf of Mexico Eastern Planning Area and are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line that are under an existing moratorium until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The CPA sale area encompasses 63 million acres and approximately 38.6 million acres are currently unleased. Alternative B would exclude unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. Alternative C would exclude unleased blocks within 15 miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, coast. The proposed action includes existing regulations and proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks. Eight lease stipulations are proposed: the topographic features stipulation, the live bottom stipulation, the military areas stipulation, the evacuation stipulation, the coordination stipulation, the blocks south of Baldwin County stipulation, the protected species stipulation, and the Law of the Sea Convention royalty payment stipulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed lease sale is projected to develop 0.8 to 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 to 6.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Normal development of the leased resources is expected to have minimal impacts. Increased turbidity resulting from pipeline installation, navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities could affect coastal waters. Offshore water impacts would result from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, produced water, and residual chemicals. Accidental events have the potential to impact benthic organisms, marine mammals, sea turtles, federally protected mouse species, coastal and marine birds, the Gulf sturgeon, other fish and essential fish habitat, commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first draft supplement, see 07-0013D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0140D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120004, Volume I-640 pages, Volume II-596 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-058 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742721?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012742684; 15208-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742684?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012742676; 15208-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742676?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - SEARCHLIGHT WIND ENERGY PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 1012742665; 15208-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction, operation and maintenance, and decommissioning of an approximately 200-megawatt (MW) wind energy facility near the town of Searchlight in Clark County, Nevada are proposed. Searchlight Wind Energy, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Duke Energy, has applied to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for a right-of-way grant on public land to develop the project. The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has submitted an application to the BLM for construction and operation of a new switching station to interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project. The project area is considered the largest contiguous lower elevation region of good-to-excellent wind resources in southern Nevada and it has medium-to-high wind resource potential capable of supporting utility scale production. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. The proposed action would involve the construction of up to 96 2.3-MW wind turbine generators (WTGs) on 18,949 acres of both private and BLM-administered lands in the Eldorado Mountains and Piute Valley, 1.5 miles west of the western border of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area. The linear strings of WTGs would be sited on ridgelines and plateau areas bounded by Golden Rod Snyder Road on the south, US-95 on the west, Fourth of July Mountains in the east, and extending a few miles north of Cottonwood Cove Road. The towers within each string would be sited approximately 750 feet apart. Electrical power generated from the WTGs would be delivered to two project electrical substations via an underground collection system. A 6.1-mile overhead transmission line would connect the two project substations. A 2.6-mile-long transmission line would interconnect the Searchlight Wind Energy Project with Westerns existing Davis-Mead 230-kilovolt transmission line east of the project site. The 96 WTG Layout Alternative would require 9.2 miles of road reconstruction and 29 miles of new road construction. The preferred alternative would involve the construction of up to 87 2.3-MW WTGs that would provide up to 200-MW of electricity. Under this alternative, 8.6 miles of road widening and improvement would be required, and 27.3 miles of new roads would be constructed. It is anticipated that the wind energy facility would operate year-round for up to 30 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Searchlight Project could help displace older fossil-fuel electric generating facilities with clean, renewable power and the 87 WTG Layout Alternative is the alternative with the least environmental effects regarding noise, biological resources, and visual resources that meets the purpose and need. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would result in removal of vegetation and permanent disturbance of soils on 152 to 160 acres. The 96-WTG Alternative would exceed the threshold for particulate matter emissions during construction. Desert tortoise, chuckwalla and Gila monster could be crushed, injured, or killed during construction grading activities. Bat species, raptors and other birds would be susceptible to collisions with overhead transmission and collector lines. Two prehistoric and three historic sites could be impacted and the project facilities would degrade the visual quality of the recreation setting. The project could create hazards due to potential blade throw or turbine collapse. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120010, 564 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-52 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Historic Sites KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Lake Mead National Recreation Area KW - Nevada KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=SEARCHLIGHT+WIND+ENERGY+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 Land Management, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742653; 15206-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742642; 15206-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742631; 15206-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742631?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742617; 15206-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742617?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742604; 15206-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742604?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742590; 15206-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742401; 15206-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742386; 15206-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742386?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742369; 15206-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742369?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - 14TH STREET BRIDGE CORRIDOR PROJECT, ARLINGTON COUNTY, VIRGINIA TO WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742356; 15206-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation system improvements within the 14th Street Bridge Corridor in Arlington County, Virginia and southwest Washington, District of Columbia are proposed. The Corridor consists of three four-lane bridges which carry Interstate-395 (I-395) and US Route 1 over the Potomac River. The northbound span of I-395, which opened in 1950, is the Arland D. Williams Bridge. The southbound span, which opened in 1962, is the George Mason Memorial Bridge. The center span was opened in 1972 for express traffic in both directions and is now named the Rochambeau Memorial Bridge. These three spans merge into two bridges that cross the Washington Channel and distribute traffic into downtown Washington. The Outlet Bridge carries traffic north onto 14th Street and the Case Bridge carries I-395 traffic into the Southeast Freeway. As the main gateway into the Nations Capital and northern Virginia, the Corridor provides important access to the National Mall, Constitution Avenue, Capitol Grounds, Lincoln Memorial, Verizon Center, RFK Stadium, East Potomac Park, Potomac River, George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP), Mt. Vernon Trail, the Pentagon, and Arlington National Cemetery. The study area extends over four miles along I-395 from VA Route 27 in Arlington County to the New York Avenue tunnel entrance at the National Mall in the southeast section of the District of Columbia. The Corridor experiences congestion in both directions during both the morning and evening peak travel periods. Traffic safety is impaired due to tight curvature on ramps, lane reductions in high volume areas, short weave areas, narrow shoulders, and lack of acceleration and deceleration lanes between ramp movements and mainline segments. The current project focuses on making the existing facilities operate more efficiently, while maintaining the existing number of general purpose highway lanes and managing congestion. This draft EIS evaluates: action alternatives related to bicycle/pedestrian, transit, and highway access; management alternatives; and a No Action Alternative. The seven action alternatives retained for further study include: improvements at each end of the Mason Bridge for bicycle and pedestrian access; construction of a separate bicycle/pedestrian crossing of the Potomac River and a grade-separated bicycle crossing of GWMP; creation of an integrated bicycle system, including signing for commuters and other bikers; construction of geometric improvements at I-395 and 9th Street; reduction of I-395 access points at Boundary Channel Drive; elimination of turn movements at the 14th Street and C Street intersection; and construction of bus lanes between Pentagon Transit Center and 14th Street at C Street, using inside shoulders on Rochambeau Bridge and transit signal priority treatment. Six management alternatives retained for further study include: expansion of incentives for telecommuting; increased participation in flexible work hours programs; parking management strategies; strengthened coordination and management; development of a driver education program specific to the Corridor; and modification of signing to create a uniform look and identity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would address deficiencies with regards to congestion, capacity, safety, and overhead signing on a critical commuter link for automobile, transit, freight, and rail users. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Two historic properties, the Mount Vernon Memorial Highway and the East and West Potomac Parks Historic District, would be adversely affected. The action alternatives would have minor impacts on three national parks: West Potomac Park, East Potomac Park, and the GWMP. None of the parkland functions or uses would be impacted. LEGAL MANDATES: District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act (P.L. 104-21) and National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 120008, 432 pages and maps, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-VA/DC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Bridges KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Parking KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - District of Columbia KW - Potomac River KW - Virginia KW - District of Columbia Emergency Highway Relief Act, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=14TH+STREET+BRIDGE+CORRIDOR+PROJECT%2C+ARLINGTON+COUNTY%2C+VIRGINIA+TO+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sterling, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). [Part 2 of 2] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASE SALE: 2012 - CENTRAL PLANNING AREA LEASE SALE 216/222 (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF NOVEMBER 2006). AN - 1012742307; 15203-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The offer for lease of certain Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) blocks located in the Central Planning Area (CPA) in the Gulf of Mexico that may contain economically recoverable oil and gas resources is proposed. Lease Sales 216 and 222 are the last remaining sales scheduled for the Central Gulf Planning Area in the 2007-2012 OCS Oil and Natural Gas Leasing Program. Consolidated Lease Sale 216/222 would provide qualified bidders the opportunity to bid on blocks in the Gulf of Mexico OCS off the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama in order to explore, develop, and produce oil and natural gas. This final supplemental EIS incorporates the latest available information following the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill of 2010. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative D), are analyzed. Under the proposed action (Alternative A), all unleased blocks within the CPA would be offered for lease with the exception of: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Gulf of Mexico Eastern Planning Area and are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line that are under an existing moratorium until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. The CPA sale area encompasses 63 million acres and approximately 38.6 million acres are currently unleased. Alternative B would exclude unleased blocks near biologically sensitive topographic features. Alternative C would exclude unleased blocks within 15 miles of the Baldwin County, Alabama, coast. The proposed action includes existing regulations and proposed lease stipulations designed to reduce environmental risks. Eight lease stipulations are proposed: the topographic features stipulation, the live bottom stipulation, the military areas stipulation, the evacuation stipulation, the coordination stipulation, the blocks south of Baldwin County stipulation, the protected species stipulation, and the Law of the Sea Convention royalty payment stipulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed lease sale is projected to develop 0.8 to 1.6 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 to 6.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas which would help the nation in its effort to become independent of foreign sources of fossil fuel energy. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Normal development of the leased resources is expected to have minimal impacts. Increased turbidity resulting from pipeline installation, navigation canal maintenance, discharges of bilge and ballast water from support vessels, and run-off from shore-based facilities could affect coastal waters. Offshore water impacts would result from the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings, produced water, and residual chemicals. Accidental events have the potential to impact benthic organisms, marine mammals, sea turtles, federally protected mouse species, coastal and marine birds, the Gulf sturgeon, other fish and essential fish habitat, commercial and recreational fishing operations, and coastal recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft EIS and the first draft supplement, see 07-0013D, Volume 31, Number 1 and 08-0140D, Volume 32, Number 2, respectively. JF - EPA number: 120004, Volume I-640 pages, Volume II-596 pages, January 20, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2012-058 KW - Air Quality KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006, Program Authorization KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-20&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALE%3A+2012+-+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALE+216%2F222+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+NOVEMBER+2006%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, New Orleans, Louisiana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 20, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 940942443; 15202 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park encompasses 99 separate units located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park and results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. 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. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control if feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.13 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the potential of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. The possibility of deer-vehicle collisions would be greatly diminished and damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative could result in the long term impairment of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0324D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120003, 592 pages and maps, January 13, 2012 PY - 2012 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/940942443?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-27 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742229; 15202-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park encompasses 99 separate units located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park and results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. 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. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control if feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.13 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the potential of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. The possibility of deer-vehicle collisions would be greatly diminished and damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative could result in the long term impairment of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0324D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120003, 592 pages and maps, January 13, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742229?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742216; 15202-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park encompasses 99 separate units located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park and results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. 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. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control if feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.13 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the potential of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. The possibility of deer-vehicle collisions would be greatly diminished and damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative could result in the long term impairment of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0324D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120003, 592 pages and maps, January 13, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742216?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742043; 15202-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park encompasses 99 separate units located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park and results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. 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. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control if feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.13 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the potential of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. The possibility of deer-vehicle collisions would be greatly diminished and damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative could result in the long term impairment of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0324D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120003, 592 pages and maps, January 13, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742043?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - ROCK CREEK PARK WHITE-TAILED DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN, WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. AN - 1012742018; 15202-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a white-tailed deer management plan that supports long-term protection, preservation, and restoration of native vegetation and other resources in Rock Creek National Park, Washington, D.C. is proposed. Rock Creek Park encompasses 99 separate units located entirely within the northwest and northeast quadrants of the District of Columbia and bordered by Montgomery County, Maryland. Over 1,100 homes and apartments abut the park units along 72 miles of the park boundary. White-tailed deer herds have increased substantially within and around the park and results of vegetation monitoring in recent years have documented the adverse effects of the growing herd size on forest regeneration. The parkwide deer population is estimated at 385 deer with does comprising 65 percent of the population. 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. Under Alternative B, several non-lethal actions such as large-scale enclosures and reproductive control of does via sterilization and an acceptable reproductive control agent when feasible would be taken. Under Alternative C, direct reduction of the deer herd would be achieved by sharpshooting and by capture and euthanasia of individual deer. Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, would combine elements from alternatives B and C: sharpshooting, capture and euthanasia would be used initially to quickly reduce the deer herd numbers, followed by population maintenance via reproductive control if feasible; if not, sharpshooting would be used as a default option for maintenance. The cost of implementing the preferred alternative over the 15-year planning period is estimated at $1.13 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would address the potential of deer becoming the dominant force in the park's ecosystem and would reverse the decline in tree seedlings, the impacts on existing shrubs and herbaceous species, and deer impacts on the character of the park's cultural landscapes. Immediately reducing the number of deer in the park and maintaining a stable population would result in beneficial, long-term impacts on soils and water quality. The possibility of deer-vehicle collisions would be greatly diminished and damage to landscaping resulting from deer browsing in residential areas would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The No Action Alternative could result in the long term impairment of vegetation, wildlife habitat, and certain rare plant species. An overabundance of deer and resultant browsing could adversely affect the cultural landscape within the park, as could the erection of fences and large enclosures. Firearm noise from sharpshooting could affect park visitors, nearby residents, and wildlife. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0324D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 120003, 592 pages and maps, January 13, 2012 PY - 2012 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Biocontrol KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Forests KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - District of Columbia KW - Maryland KW - Rock Creek National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1012742018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2012-01-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.title=ROCK+CREEK+PARK+WHITE-TAILED+DEER+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+WASHINGTON%2C+DISTRICT+OF+COLUMBIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 13, 2012 N1 - Last updated - 2012-05-14 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. AN - 963637274; 15192-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the authorization of oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas within the five year period of 2012 through 2017 are proposed. The project area covers 200,331 square miles within the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and includes State of Alaska and outer continental shelf waters adjacent to the North Slope of Alaska, and transit areas of the Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Straits. The statutory responsibilities include the issuance of permits and authorizations by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for seismic surveys and the issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS issues ITAs for oil and gas exploration activities because it is likely that seismic and exploratory drilling activities result in the disturbance of marine mammals. Key issues include: impacts to marine mammals and habitats; risks of oil spills; climate change; protection of subsistence resources and the Inupiat culture; availability of research and monitoring data for decision-making; monitoring requirements; and mitigation measures. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. The reasonable range and level of activities for which permits and authorizations may be requested are based upon past lease sales, geological and geophysical permits, ancillary activity notices, exploration drilling exploration activities, and requests for ITAs. The activities that are evaluated in this EIS are grouped into three categories: deep penetration geophysical surveys including seismic surveys, gravity and gradiometry surveys, and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveys; shallow hazards surveys using acoustic imagery of the sub-seafloor or using sediment sampling devices; and exploratory drilling. Alternative 2 would authorize Level 1 activity to include: up to four seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to three seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number of surveys in each sea including ice breaking if necessary; up to three site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and one exploratory drilling program in each sea per year. Alternative 3 would authorize Level 2 exploration activity to include: up to six seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to five seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number in each sea including ice breaking; up to five site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and up to two exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year. Alternatives 4 and 5 would also authorize Level 2 exploration activity, but with additional required time/area closures and use of alternative technologies, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would facilitate NMFS decision-making through proactive analysis of the effects of multiple exploration activities and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The collection of high-resolution shallow hazards data would help the BOEM ensure safe operations, support environmental impact analyses, protect resources through avoidance measures, and perform other statutory responsibilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic and exploratory drilling activities may result in the disturbance of marine mammals through sound, discharge of pollutants, and the physical presence of vessels. Drill sites would impact visual resources. A very large oil spill scenario would cause: sustained degradation of water quality and ecosystems; contamination of essential fish habitat; toxic exposure of marine and terrestrial species; contamination of the shoreline with major disruption of subsistence practices; displacement of recreationists and reduction in tourism; acute disturbance of visual resources; and impacts to public health. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110436, Volume I--424 pages, Volume II--654 pages, Volume III--488 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Energy Sources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Ice Environments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea 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/963637274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland; DC N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. AN - 963636812; 15192-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the authorization of oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas within the five year period of 2012 through 2017 are proposed. The project area covers 200,331 square miles within the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and includes State of Alaska and outer continental shelf waters adjacent to the North Slope of Alaska, and transit areas of the Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Straits. The statutory responsibilities include the issuance of permits and authorizations by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for seismic surveys and the issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS issues ITAs for oil and gas exploration activities because it is likely that seismic and exploratory drilling activities result in the disturbance of marine mammals. Key issues include: impacts to marine mammals and habitats; risks of oil spills; climate change; protection of subsistence resources and the Inupiat culture; availability of research and monitoring data for decision-making; monitoring requirements; and mitigation measures. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. The reasonable range and level of activities for which permits and authorizations may be requested are based upon past lease sales, geological and geophysical permits, ancillary activity notices, exploration drilling exploration activities, and requests for ITAs. The activities that are evaluated in this EIS are grouped into three categories: deep penetration geophysical surveys including seismic surveys, gravity and gradiometry surveys, and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveys; shallow hazards surveys using acoustic imagery of the sub-seafloor or using sediment sampling devices; and exploratory drilling. Alternative 2 would authorize Level 1 activity to include: up to four seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to three seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number of surveys in each sea including ice breaking if necessary; up to three site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and one exploratory drilling program in each sea per year. Alternative 3 would authorize Level 2 exploration activity to include: up to six seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to five seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number in each sea including ice breaking; up to five site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and up to two exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year. Alternatives 4 and 5 would also authorize Level 2 exploration activity, but with additional required time/area closures and use of alternative technologies, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would facilitate NMFS decision-making through proactive analysis of the effects of multiple exploration activities and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The collection of high-resolution shallow hazards data would help the BOEM ensure safe operations, support environmental impact analyses, protect resources through avoidance measures, and perform other statutory responsibilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic and exploratory drilling activities may result in the disturbance of marine mammals through sound, discharge of pollutants, and the physical presence of vessels. Drill sites would impact visual resources. A very large oil spill scenario would cause: sustained degradation of water quality and ecosystems; contamination of essential fish habitat; toxic exposure of marine and terrestrial species; contamination of the shoreline with major disruption of subsistence practices; displacement of recreationists and reduction in tourism; acute disturbance of visual resources; and impacts to public health. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110436, Volume I--424 pages, Volume II--654 pages, Volume III--488 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Energy Sources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Ice Environments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea 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/963636812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland; DC N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 963636397; 15191-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan (GMP) for the Lincoln Home National Historic Site in Springfield, Illinois is proposed. The Sangamon County site protects and interprets the home where Abraham Lincoln lived with his family from 1844 to 1861 and is also the burial site for Mr. Lincoln. The fundamental resources include: the Lincoln Home and lot; the view of the neighborhood from the Lincoln Home, including the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson Streets and the surrounding lots, homes, and outbuildings; the historic landscape of the Lincoln neighborhood; and views of the Lincoln Home from the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson as well as from neighboring lots. The current master plan was completed more than 35 years ago and is inadequate in terms of addressing new issues and challenges. This abbreviated final EIS presents responses to comments received regarding four alternatives described in the draft EIS of May 2010. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would continue current management direction. Alternative 2, A Retreat From Modern Life in the Heart of the City, is the preferred alternative and would focus on rehabilitating the historic landscape to offer visitors a sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. Extensive rehabilitation would be carried out at the core of the site, but less extensive work would occur away from the core. The historic landscape would be rehabilitated to provide visitors with an understanding of and appreciation for the size, density, and diversity of this mid-19th century neighborhood. Rehabilitation would be most extensive at the intersection of Eighth Street and Jackson Street. Contemporary buildings would be constructed on the empty lots of three of the historic houses and the Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest degree possible. Alternative 3, Life and Work in a Rehabilitated Lincoln-era Urban Landscape, would focus on interpreting and rehabilitating the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it along the entire length of Eighth Street. Under Alternative 4, Self-discovery of the Lincoln-era Landscape, management would focus on rehabilitating the landscape to provide visual cues of what was present during Lincolns time, offering visitors a sense of self-discovery. Total one-time costs and annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.2 million and $3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed GMP would confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of Lincoln Home National Historic Site. The plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved over the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an approved plan would depend on future funding and could take many years. Implementation of the preferred alternative would have long-term, minor adverse impacts on archeological resources from new construction. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0391D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110435, 28 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 11-40 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Lincoln Home National Historic Site KW - Illinois KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/963636397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Springfield, Illinois; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. AN - 963635856; 15192-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the authorization of oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas within the five year period of 2012 through 2017 are proposed. The project area covers 200,331 square miles within the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and includes State of Alaska and outer continental shelf waters adjacent to the North Slope of Alaska, and transit areas of the Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Straits. The statutory responsibilities include the issuance of permits and authorizations by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for seismic surveys and the issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS issues ITAs for oil and gas exploration activities because it is likely that seismic and exploratory drilling activities result in the disturbance of marine mammals. Key issues include: impacts to marine mammals and habitats; risks of oil spills; climate change; protection of subsistence resources and the Inupiat culture; availability of research and monitoring data for decision-making; monitoring requirements; and mitigation measures. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. The reasonable range and level of activities for which permits and authorizations may be requested are based upon past lease sales, geological and geophysical permits, ancillary activity notices, exploration drilling exploration activities, and requests for ITAs. The activities that are evaluated in this EIS are grouped into three categories: deep penetration geophysical surveys including seismic surveys, gravity and gradiometry surveys, and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveys; shallow hazards surveys using acoustic imagery of the sub-seafloor or using sediment sampling devices; and exploratory drilling. Alternative 2 would authorize Level 1 activity to include: up to four seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to three seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number of surveys in each sea including ice breaking if necessary; up to three site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and one exploratory drilling program in each sea per year. Alternative 3 would authorize Level 2 exploration activity to include: up to six seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to five seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number in each sea including ice breaking; up to five site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and up to two exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year. Alternatives 4 and 5 would also authorize Level 2 exploration activity, but with additional required time/area closures and use of alternative technologies, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would facilitate NMFS decision-making through proactive analysis of the effects of multiple exploration activities and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The collection of high-resolution shallow hazards data would help the BOEM ensure safe operations, support environmental impact analyses, protect resources through avoidance measures, and perform other statutory responsibilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic and exploratory drilling activities may result in the disturbance of marine mammals through sound, discharge of pollutants, and the physical presence of vessels. Drill sites would impact visual resources. A very large oil spill scenario would cause: sustained degradation of water quality and ecosystems; contamination of essential fish habitat; toxic exposure of marine and terrestrial species; contamination of the shoreline with major disruption of subsistence practices; displacement of recreationists and reduction in tourism; acute disturbance of visual resources; and impacts to public health. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110436, Volume I--424 pages, Volume II--654 pages, Volume III--488 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Energy Sources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Ice Environments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea 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/963635856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland; DC N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963634072; 15190-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963634072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963634049; 15190-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963634049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963633998; 15190-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963633998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632774; 15190-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632744; 15190-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632118; 15190-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632106; 15190-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632089; 15190-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632072; 15190-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632056; 15190-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632044; 15190-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632044?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963632024; 15190-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963632024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - GULF OF MEXICO OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF 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, TEXAS, LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, AND NORTHWESTERN FLORIDA. AN - 963631995; 15190-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Ten oil and gas lease sales within two planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico off the coasts of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and northwestern Florida are proposed. Under the Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012-2017, two sales would be held each year, one in the Western Planning Area (WPA) and one in the Central Planning Area (CPA). The proposed WPA lease sales are Lease Sale 229 in 2012, Lease Sale 233 in 2013, Lease Sale 238 in 2014, Lease Sale 246 in 2015, and Lease Sale 248 in 2016; the proposed CPA lease sales are Lease Sale 227 in 2013, Lease Sale 231 in 2014, Lease Sale 235 in 2015, Lease Sale 241 in 2016, and Lease Sale 247 in 2017. At the completion of this EIS process, decisions will be made only for proposed Lease Sale 229 in the WPA and proposed Lease Sale 227 in the CPA. A National Environmental Policy Act review will be conducted before each subsequent proposed lease sale. This draft EIS considers three alternatives each for the two planning areas. Alternative A for the WPA is the proposed action and would offer for lease all unleased blocks except the following: 1) whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary; and 2) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, approximately 21.2 million acres of the 28.6 million-acre WPA sale area is currently unleased. A single proposed WPA lease sale is projected to develop 0.116 to 0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538 to 0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas. Alternative B would offer for lease all unleased blocks in the WPA sale area, 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. Alternative A for the CPA is the proposed action and preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks except: 1) blocks that were previously included within the Eastern Planning Area and that are within 100 miles of the Florida coast; 2) blocks east of the Military Mission line, which are not offered until 2022; 3) blocks that are beyond the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone in the area known as the northern portion of the Eastern Gap; and 4) whole and partial blocks that lie within the former Western Gap and are within 1.4 nautical miles north of the continental shelf boundary between the U.S. and Mexico. As of November 2011, about 38.6 million acres of the 63 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 WPA and CPA would help reduce the need for oil imports and lessen a growing dependence on foreign oil. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Fish resources and essential fish habitat could be impacted by coastal environmental degradation potentially caused by canal dredging, increases in infrastructure, and inshore spills. 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 a proposed action would be small, of short duration, and not likely to impact Gulf Coast recreational resources. LEGAL MANDATES: Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-432) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110434, Volume I--686 pages, Volume II--755 pages, Volume III--755 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-057 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 - 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/963631995?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+FLORIDA.&rft.title=GULF+OF+MEXICO+OUTER+CONTINENTAL+SHELF+OIL+AND+GAS+LEASE+SALES%3A+2012+-+2017%3B+WESTERN+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+229%2C+233%2C+238%2C+246%2C+AND+248%3B+CENTRAL+PLANNING+AREA+LEASE+SALES+227%2C+231%2C+235%2C+241%2C+AND+247%2C+TEXAS%2C+LOUISIANA%2C+MISSISSIPPI%2C+ALABAMA%2C+AND+NORTHWESTERN+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 - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EFFECTS OF OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES IN THE ARCTIC OCEAN, BEAUFORT AND CHUKCHI SEAS, ALASKA. AN - 926640456; 15192 AB - PURPOSE: Management alternatives for the authorization of oil and gas exploration activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas within the five year period of 2012 through 2017 are proposed. The project area covers 200,331 square miles within the Alaskan portion of the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and includes State of Alaska and outer continental shelf waters adjacent to the North Slope of Alaska, and transit areas of the Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Straits. The statutory responsibilities include the issuance of permits and authorizations by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for seismic surveys and the issuance of incidental take authorizations (ITAs) by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). NMFS issues ITAs for oil and gas exploration activities because it is likely that seismic and exploratory drilling activities result in the disturbance of marine mammals. Key issues include: impacts to marine mammals and habitats; risks of oil spills; climate change; protection of subsistence resources and the Inupiat culture; availability of research and monitoring data for decision-making; monitoring requirements; and mitigation measures. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this draft EIS. The reasonable range and level of activities for which permits and authorizations may be requested are based upon past lease sales, geological and geophysical permits, ancillary activity notices, exploration drilling exploration activities, and requests for ITAs. The activities that are evaluated in this EIS are grouped into three categories: deep penetration geophysical surveys including seismic surveys, gravity and gradiometry surveys, and controlled source electromagnetic (CSEM) surveys; shallow hazards surveys using acoustic imagery of the sub-seafloor or using sediment sampling devices; and exploratory drilling. Alternative 2 would authorize Level 1 activity to include: up to four seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to three seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number of surveys in each sea including ice breaking if necessary; up to three site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and one exploratory drilling program in each sea per year. Alternative 3 would authorize Level 2 exploration activity to include: up to six seismic or CSEM surveys in the Beaufort Sea and up to five seismic or CSEM surveys in the Chukchi Sea per year, with up to one of that total number in each sea including ice breaking; up to five site clearance and high resolution shallow hazards survey programs in each sea per year; one on-ice seismic survey in the Beaufort Sea per year; and up to two exploratory drilling programs in each sea per year. Alternatives 4 and 5 would also authorize Level 2 exploration activity, but with additional required time/area closures and use of alternative technologies, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would facilitate NMFS decision-making through proactive analysis of the effects of multiple exploration activities and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. The collection of high-resolution shallow hazards data would help the BOEM ensure safe operations, support environmental impact analyses, protect resources through avoidance measures, and perform other statutory responsibilities. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Seismic and exploratory drilling activities may result in the disturbance of marine mammals through sound, discharge of pollutants, and the physical presence of vessels. Drill sites would impact visual resources. A very large oil spill scenario would cause: sustained degradation of water quality and ecosystems; contamination of essential fish habitat; toxic exposure of marine and terrestrial species; contamination of the shoreline with major disruption of subsistence practices; displacement of recreationists and reduction in tourism; acute disturbance of visual resources; and impacts to public health. LEGAL MANDATES: Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1371) and Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110436, Volume I--424 pages, Volume II--654 pages, Volume III--488 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Energy KW - Birds KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Energy Sources KW - Environmental Justice KW - Exploration KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Ice Environments KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Minorities KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Ships KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Alaska KW - Arctic Ocean KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea 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/926640456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.title=EFFECTS+OF+OIL+AND+GAS+ACTIVITIES+IN+THE+ARCTIC+OCEAN%2C+BEAUFORT+AND+CHUKCHI+SEAS%2C+ALASKA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland; DC N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LINCOLN HOME NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SANGAMON COUNTY, ILLINOIS. AN - 16383167; 15191 AB - PURPOSE: A new general management plan (GMP) for the Lincoln Home National Historic Site in Springfield, Illinois is proposed. The Sangamon County site protects and interprets the home where Abraham Lincoln lived with his family from 1844 to 1861 and is also the burial site for Mr. Lincoln. The fundamental resources include: the Lincoln Home and lot; the view of the neighborhood from the Lincoln Home, including the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson Streets and the surrounding lots, homes, and outbuildings; the historic landscape of the Lincoln neighborhood; and views of the Lincoln Home from the intersection of South Eighth and Jackson as well as from neighboring lots. The current master plan was completed more than 35 years ago and is inadequate in terms of addressing new issues and challenges. This abbreviated final EIS presents responses to comments received regarding four alternatives described in the draft EIS of May 2010. Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative and would continue current management direction. Alternative 2, A Retreat From Modern Life in the Heart of the City, is the preferred alternative and would focus on rehabilitating the historic landscape to offer visitors a sense of the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it. Extensive rehabilitation would be carried out at the core of the site, but less extensive work would occur away from the core. The historic landscape would be rehabilitated to provide visitors with an understanding of and appreciation for the size, density, and diversity of this mid-19th century neighborhood. Rehabilitation would be most extensive at the intersection of Eighth Street and Jackson Street. Contemporary buildings would be constructed on the empty lots of three of the historic houses and the Lincoln lot would be restored to the greatest degree possible. Alternative 3, Life and Work in a Rehabilitated Lincoln-era Urban Landscape, would focus on interpreting and rehabilitating the neighborhood as Lincoln knew it along the entire length of Eighth Street. Under Alternative 4, Self-discovery of the Lincoln-era Landscape, management would focus on rehabilitating the landscape to provide visual cues of what was present during Lincolns time, offering visitors a sense of self-discovery. Total one-time costs and annual operating costs for the preferred alternative are estimated at $18.2 million and $3 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed GMP would confirm the purpose, significance, and special mandates of Lincoln Home National Historic Site. The plan would clearly define resource conditions and visitor uses and experiences to be achieved over the next 15 to 20 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of an approved plan would depend on future funding and could take many years. Implementation of the preferred alternative would have long-term, minor adverse impacts on archeological resources from new construction. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0391D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110435, 28 pages, December 30, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Agency number: FES 11-40 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Buildings KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Lincoln Home National Historic Site KW - Illinois KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16383167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.title=LINCOLN+HOME+NATIONAL+HISTORIC+SITE+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SANGAMON+COUNTY%2C+ILLINOIS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Springfield, Illinois; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-08 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 6 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963637251; 15183-7_0006 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 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/963637251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 5 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963637250; 15183-7_0005 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 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/963637250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 4 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963637249; 15183-7_0004 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 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/963637249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 3 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963636667; 15183-7_0003 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 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/963636667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 2 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963636660; 15183-7_0002 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 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/963636660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 1 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963636650; 15183-7_0001 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 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/963636650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. [Part 7 of 7] T2 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 963635585; 15183-7_0007 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 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/963635585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-04-03 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GREENS HOLLOW COAL LEASE TRACT, FISHLAKE AND MANTI-LA SAL NATIONAL FORESTS, SANPETE AND SEVIER COUNTIES, UTAH. AN - 16375408; 15183 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. 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), are considered in this final EIS. 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. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0144D, Volume 33, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110427, Final EIS--465 pages, Record of Decision--26 pages, December 23, 2011 PY - 2011 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/16375408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-23&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.&rft.title=GREENS+HOLLOW+COAL+LEASE+TRACT%2C+FISHLAKE+AND+MANTI-LA+SAL+NATIONAL+FORESTS%2C+SANPETE+AND+SEVIER+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, Price, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 23, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-24 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982152; 15175-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982143; 15175-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982133; 15175-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982133?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982123; 15175-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982123?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982116; 15175-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982116?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982110; 15175-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982110?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982101; 15175-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982094; 15175-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982082; 15175-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982082?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982018; 15175-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982012; 15175-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982007; 15175-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928982001; 15175-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928982001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928981994; 15175-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981994?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928981989; 15175-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928981982; 15175-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981982?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928981975; 15175-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 18] T2 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 928981524; 15175-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981524?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981519; 15174-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981511; 15174-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981507; 15174-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981500; 15174-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981494; 15174-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981490; 15174-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981470; 15174-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981464; 15174-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981458; 15174-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 13] T2 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 928981448; 15174-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/928981448?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUISUN MARSH HABITAT MANAGEMENT, PRESERVATION, AND RESTORATION PLAN, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 922210987; 15175 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive plan to address conflicts regarding use of resources within Suisun Marsh, Solano County, California is proposed. The Suisun Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan is intended to balance the benefits of tidal wetland restoration with other habitat uses by evaluating alternatives that provide an acceptable change in land uses, such as salt marsh harvest mouse habitat, managed wetlands, public use, and upland habitat. Suisun Marsh is the largest contiguous brackish water marsh remaining on the west coast of North America and is a critical part of the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta estuary ecosystem. It is home to public waterfowl hunting areas and 158 private duck clubs. The Marsh encompasses more than 10 percent of Californias remaining natural wetlands and provides important habitat for more than 221 bird species, 45 mammalian species, 16 different reptile and amphibian species, and more than 40 fish species. Approximately 200 miles of levees in the Marsh contribute to managing salinity in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Large open spaces and proximity to urban areas make the Marsh ideally suited for wildlife viewing, hiking, canoeing, and other recreation opportunities. A group of local, state, and federal agencies with primary responsibility for management are pursuing the Suisun Marsh Plan (SMP), and this final EIS describes three alternative 30-year plans, as well as a No Action Plan. The total amount of existing managed wetlands and uplands that could be affected by SMP activities is 52,112 acres. Under Alternative A, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored to self-sustaining tidal wetland and the remaining 44,000 to 46,000 acres of managed wetlands would be enhanced for levee stability and flood and drain capabilities. Alternative B and Alternative C would restore 2,000 to 4,000 acres and 7,000 to 9,000 acres of tidal wetland, respectively. Land suitable for restoration would be acquired only from willing sellers. Activities would include: breaching or lowering existing levees; upgrading or constructing new levees; grading pond bottoms; installing or replacing pipe, drain pumps, and platforms; replacing riprap and water control structures; installing alternate bank protection; constructing cofferdams; installing new fish screens; repairing or replacing salinity monitoring stations; and dredging from tidal sloughs. Over the 30-year SMP implementation period, it is expected that the exact habitat amount provided by restored areas will depend on the existing elevation of the site, sedimentation rates and accretion, and sea level rise. The amount of subtidal aquatic habitat is expected to decrease gradually as sediment accretes and emergent tidal vegetation is established at each restoration site. As this happens, the site will be restored to a tidal wetland. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Development of a regional plan would balance implementation of the CALFED Program, the Suisun Marsh Preservation Agreement, and other management and restoration programs in a manner responsive to the concerns of stakeholders and based upon voluntary participation by private landowners. Under the preferred plan, 5,000 to 7,000 acres would be restored as tidal wetlands and tidal aquatic habitat would increase by 250 to 1,050 acres. Fish habitat would be improved due to increased oxygen concentrations in tidal channels and shorebird and waterfowl populations would benefit from improved nesting and winter habitat. The potential for catastrophic flooding would be reduced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction-related emissions would exceed draft local standards for restoration and management activities; and noise-sensitive land uses would be exposed to noise from portable pump operations. Construction and dredging could damage pipelines and disrupt electrical, gas, or other energy supplies. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0588D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110419, Volume I--1,108 pages, Volume II (Appendices)--238 pages and maps, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Bank Protection KW - Birds KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Dredging KW - Emission Standards KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Flood Protection KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Municipal Services KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Regulations KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Saltwater Barriers KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Suisun Marsh KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/922210987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUISUN+MARSH+HABITAT+MANAGEMENT%2C+PRESERVATION%2C+AND+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+SOLANO+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 - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ROSS LAKE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, SKAGIT AND WHATCOM COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 16370033; 15174 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of a general management plan (GMP) to guide decision-making during the next 15 to 20 years for the Ross Lake National Recreational Area (NRA), Skagit and Whatcom counties, Washington is proposed. Ross Lake NRA was established in 1968 and is the most accessible part of the North Cascades National Park Service (NPS) Complex via Washington State Route 20, the North Cascades Highway. Ross Lake NRA protects 116,798 acres and includes three reservoirs: Ross Lake, Diablo Lake, and Gorge Lake. Ringed by mountains and glaciers, most of Ross Lake NRA is designated wilderness and offers many outdoor recreation opportunities along the upper reaches of the Skagit River and between the north and south units of North Cascades National Park. The current North Cascades Complex GMP was completed in 1988 and no longer provides adequate guidance to address the policy and operational issues for Ross Lake NRA. Four management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are considered in this final EIS. Each alternative would assign one of five management zones to areas of Ross Lake NRA. The preferred alternative (Alternative B) would focus on managing Ross Lake NRA as a wilderness gateway, providing enhanced visitor opportunities along the North Cascades Highway, and making better use of facilities along that corridor while ensuring the long-term stewardship of natural resources, cultural resources, and wilderness. Recreation would be enhanced along the highway through the addition of limited new facilities, including day-hiking trails, reconfigured parking areas, and the modest expansion of overnight facilities and concessions. Recreation management in the wilderness and backcountry areas of Ross Lake NRA, including Ross Lake, would focus on providing visitors with opportunities for solitude and connections with the natural world. Self-propelled and non-mechanized recreation would be encouraged and regulations for motorized water recreation would maintain the character of the lakes and the Skagit River, while also promoting cleaner motor technologies. A new reservation system for permits would allow visitors the opportunity for advance trip planning. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. NPS recommendations would include: the designation of the Skagit River as a wild and scenic river; and a name change for Ross Lake NRA to North Cascades NRA. Under Alternative C, management would focus on broader ecosystem preservation with restrictions on some recreational uses in the backcountry and wilderness and a prohibition on seaplane landings on lakes. Alternative D would emphasize diversification of Ross Lake NRAs visitor base by allowing a wide variety of recreational activities. Seaplanes would be allowed to land and take off on Diablo and Ross lakes only in the frontcountry zone. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would preserve wilderness areas. Regulations for motorized water recreation would improve natural soundscapes, wilderness character, and the overall visitor experiences in many areas. Improvements and new opportunities along the highway corridor would have benefited most uses. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The North Cascades Highway would continue to adversely influence hydraulic processes in the vicinity of running waters along its alignment within Ross Lake NRA. Minor impacts to water quality would result from NPS operations and maintenance related activities, including road and facility maintenance and boating operations. Adverse effects to recreation could result from reservations and fees, conflicting uses, possible loss of campsites, and reduction in areas where seaplanes can land. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-625). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0397D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110418, Volume I--262 pages, Volume II--532 pages, December 16, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Aircraft KW - Land Management KW - National Parks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Dams KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Trails KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Ross Lake KW - Ross Lake National Recreational Area KW - Skagit River KW - Stephen Mather Wilderness KW - Washington 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/16370033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=ROSS+LAKE+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA+GENERAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+SKAGIT+AND+WHATCOM+COUNTIES%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Sedro-Woodley, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 16, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 4 of 4] T2 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 928981434; 15165-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide broad-scale direction for the management of public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Taos Field Office and consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos RMP. The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses, mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,855 acres. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan reflects current policies and would apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. 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 10-0326D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110409, Final EIS--531 pages, Appendices--332 pages, 63 maps, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-01-1610 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%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, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981429; 15169-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981429?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981426; 15169-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981424; 15169-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981423; 15169-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981422; 15169-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981422?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981416; 15169-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 3 of 4] T2 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 928981098; 15165-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide broad-scale direction for the management of public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Taos Field Office and consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos RMP. The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses, mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,855 acres. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan reflects current policies and would apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. 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 10-0326D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110409, Final EIS--531 pages, Appendices--332 pages, 63 maps, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-01-1610 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981098?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%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, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 2 of 4] T2 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 928981091; 15165-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide broad-scale direction for the management of public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Taos Field Office and consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos RMP. The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses, mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,855 acres. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan reflects current policies and would apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. 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 10-0326D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110409, Final EIS--531 pages, Appendices--332 pages, 63 maps, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-01-1610 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981091?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%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, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 4] T2 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 928981076; 15165-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide broad-scale direction for the management of public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Taos Field Office and consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos RMP. The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses, mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,855 acres. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan reflects current policies and would apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. 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 10-0326D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110409, Final EIS--531 pages, Appendices--332 pages, 63 maps, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-01-1610 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981076?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%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, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981017; 15169-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928981007; 15169-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928981007?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928980796; 15169-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928980796?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 928980791; 15169-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/928980791?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WINDY GAP FIRMING PROJECT, GRAND COUNTY, COLORADO. AN - 16375344; 15169 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of new water storage reservoirs, to be incorporated into the existing Windy Gap Project (WGP), in Grand County, Colorado is proposed. The WGP is located near the town of Granby on Colorado's West Slope and consists of a diversion dam on the Colorado River, a 445-acre-foot reservoir, a pumping plant, and a six-mile pipeline to Granby Reservoir. The project is neither federally owned nor operated, but WGP water is stored and conveyed through the Bureau of Reclamation's Colorado-Big Thompson Project (C-BT) facilities prior to delivery to WGP allottees. Reclamation allows the storage and transport of WGP water in the CBT Project through an excess capacity contract with the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The WGP was originally planned to divert an estimated longterm annual average of 56,000 acre-feet of water from the Colorado River. However, the WGP has been unable to provide the expected yield due to its junior water right and periodic lack of excess capacity in the CBT Project. In addition, the WGP does not currently provide annual carry-over water storage for the Middle Park Water Conservancy District on the West Slope. Under the desired condition, 30,000 acre-feet of additional firm annual yield would be added to reservoir storage capacity, along with ancillary facilities capable of supporting delivery of that water. The proposed Windy Gap Firming Project is a collaborative effort of 14 water providers and users facilitated by the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Five alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this final EIS. Alternative 2, which is the proposed project and preferred alternative, would involve the creation of an impoundment, known as the Chimney Hollow Reservoir, with a capacity of 90,000 acre-feet. Water would be conveyed to the reservoir via a new pipeline connection to existing East Slope C-BT facilities. New connections between the reservoir and Carter Lake would allow delivery of water to project participants using existing infrastructure. Prepositioning would involve the use of available Adams Tunnel capacity to deliver C-BT water to Chimney Hollow Reservoir to occupy storage space that is not occupied by WGP water. The delivery of C-BT water from Granby Reservoir to Chimney Hollow Reservoir would create space for WGP water in Granby Reservoir. When WGP water is diverted into Granby Reservoir, the C-BT water in Chimney Hollow Reservoir would be exchanged for a like amount of WGP water in Granby Reservoir. Total allowable C-BT storage would not change and the existing C-BT diversions would not be expanded. The other action alternatives would involve creation of one of three other candidate reservoirs. Under Alternative 3, storage need would be met using a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Jasper East Reservoir. Alternative 4 would employ a combination of 70,000 acre-feet in Chimney Hollow Reservoir and 20,000 acre-feet in Rockwell/Mueller Creek Reservoir. Alternative 5 would use a combination of 60,000 acre-feet in Dry Creek Reservoir and 30,000 acre-feet in Rockwell Reservoir. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The firming project would increase yield over that of the existing WGP and provide more reliable water deliveries to Front Range and West Slope communities and industrial users. The project would benefit 10 cities, two water districts and an electric power provider. Beneficial streamflow would increase from the discharge of Windy Gap return flows to the Big Thompson River, St. Vrain Creek, Big Dry Creek, and Coal Creek. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the Chimney Hollow Reservoir would inundate 2.9 acres of wetlands and 810 acres of elk and mule deer winter range and black bear foraging habitat. Under the preferred alternative, average annual Colorado River flows below Granby Reservoir, Windy Gap Reservoir, and the confluence with the Blue River would decline by 15 percent, 14 percent, and three percent, respectively. Water quality and water temperature changes would affect fish habitat. The project would also require acquisition or easements on private land and the relocation of utilities. In the long-term, Colorado River depletions would affect recreational uses of the river. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Reclamation Reform Act of 1986. PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0486D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110413, Final EIS (Volume 1)--811 pages and maps, Responses to Comments (Volume II)--661 pages, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FES 11-29 KW - Creeks KW - Dams KW - Diversion Structures KW - Fish KW - Flood Hazards KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Industrial Water KW - Irrigation KW - Municipal Services KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Water Quality KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Colorado KW - Colorado River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Reclamation Reform Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375344?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.title=WINDY+GAP+FIRMING+PROJECT%2C+GRAND+COUNTY%2C+COLORADO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Loveland, Colorado; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TAOS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, COLFAX, HARDING, LOS ALAMOS, MORA, RIO ARRIBA, SAN MIGUEL, SANTA FE, TAOS, AND UNION COUNTIES, NEW MEXICO. AN - 16375288; 15165 AB - PURPOSE: A Resource Management Plan (RMP) to provide broad-scale direction for the management of public lands in Colfax, Harding, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Santa Fe, Taos, and Union counties, New Mexico are proposed. These lands are administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Taos Field Office and consist of approximately 595,100 acres of surface estate and 1.5 million acres of mineral estate which are currently managed under the 1988 Taos RMP. The primary issues of public interest within the planning area include visual resource management, land tenure adjustment, land uses, mineral development, off-highway vehicles use, renewable energy, and special area designations. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. The four alternatives provide a range of management options, from an emphasis on resource use and development to one of conservation and protection. Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would balance conservation and preservation of natural and cultural resources with resource uses, including the trends toward renewable energy development and increased recreational use. Several areas having unique or sensitive cultural resources would be designated for special management with reduced access and restrictions on surface-disturbing activities and four areas would be managed for wilderness character. Eleven areas of critical environmental concern would be designated totaling 407,855 acres. Fish populations and habitat would be managed actively to increase native and decrease exotic fish species on 230 miles of perennial streams. No livestock conversions from cattle to domestic sheep or goats would be allowed in allotments within occupied bighorn sheep habitat and fences would be built to allow wildlife passage. Transportation plans would consider opportunities to reduce fragmentation in the Taos Plateau, Chama, La Cienga, Ojo Caliente, Lower George, and Sabinoso areas of critical environmental concern. Timing restrictions and survey requirements would be applied to surface disturbing activities within critical habitat for elk, mule deer, pronghorn and bighorn sheep, various raptor species, mountain plover, gray vireo, prairie dog, and bats. Approximately 79 percent of the mineral estate would be open to leasing, while two-thirds would be open to locatable and salable minerals. One-third of the planning area would be available for renewable energy development. Alternative B would place the greatest emphasis on protection, restoration, maintenance, or enhancement of the ecosystem using natural processes, while providing the greatest protection to cultural resources. Alternative C would emphasize resource uses and commodity production and would provide the greatest opportunities for recreation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan reflects current policies and would apply new management strategies for resources and opportunities. The preferred alternative would provide the greatest opportunity to acquire and dispose of lands for improved manageability and resource protection. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred alternative, the percentage of the mineral estate open to leasing would be reduced and could lead to increased mineral development on private lands. In addition to a loss of use of the resources and consequent loss of federal royalties, potential drainage of federal oil and gas could occur. 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 10-0326D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110409, Final EIS--531 pages, Appendices--332 pages, 63 maps, December 9, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: BLM/NM/PL-12-01-1610 KW - Conservation KW - Cultural Resources Management KW - Energy Sources KW - Fish KW - Land Management KW - Leasing KW - Mineral Resources Management KW - Open Space KW - Range Management KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16375288?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=TAOS+RESOURCE+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+COLFAX%2C+HARDING%2C+LOS+ALAMOS%2C+MORA%2C+RIO+ARRIBA%2C+SAN+MIGUEL%2C+SANTA+FE%2C+TAOS%2C+AND+UNION+COUNTIES%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, Taos, New Mexico; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 9, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429506; 15160-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429502; 15160-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429499; 15160-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429402; 15160-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429402?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429401; 15160-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429400; 15160-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429399; 15160-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429398; 15160-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429398?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 2 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429397; 15160-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429397?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429396; 15160-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429396?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429395; 15160-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 24 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429394; 15160-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429394?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429392; 15160-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429392?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 15 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429391; 15160-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429391?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 14 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921429390; 15160-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921429390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424337; 15160-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424337?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424326; 15160-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424318; 15160-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424316; 15160-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 7 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424315; 15160-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424305; 15160-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 6 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424300; 15160-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 26 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424294; 15160-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424294?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 17 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921424283; 15160-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921424283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921423626; 15160-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921423626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 12 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921423612; 15160-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921423612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 5 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921423230; 15160-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921423230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - MOUNT HOPE PROJECT, EUREKA COUNTY NEVADA. AN - 921423218; 15160-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of an open pit molybdenum mine and milling facility on public and private land in Eureka County, Nevada is proposed. Eureka Moly, LLC has submitted a plan of operations to the Bureau of Land Management for the Mount Hope Molybdenum Mining Project which would involve processing the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. Primary facilities would include: an open pit with associated pit dewatering; two waste rock disposal facilities (WRDFs); milling facilities; a molybdenite concentrate roaster and packaging plant; a ferromolybdenum plant for production of ferromolybdenum alloy; two tailings storage facilities (TSFs); an ongoing exploration program; a low-grade ore stockpile; a water supply in the Kobeh Valley well field area; and a 24-mile long, 230-kilovolt electric power supply line from the existing Machacek substation, with a substation and distribution system. Ancillary facilities would include: haul, secondary, and exploration roads; warehouse and maintenance facilities; storm water diversions; sediment control basins; pipeline corridors; water storage and a process water storage pond; monitoring wells; administrative buildings; borrow areas; hazardous waste management facilities; a landfill; an area to store and treat petroleum contaminated soils; and turn lanes on State Route 278. The 80-year project would have an 18-month construction phase, 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. Concurrent reclamation would begin after the first 15 years of the project. The Mount Hope ore body contains 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenum. Approximately 1.7 billion tons of waste rock would be produced by the end of the 32-year mine life and 1.0 billion tons of tailings would be produced by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. The surface disturbance associated with these activities would total 8,318 acres including 8,056 acres of public land. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and three action alternatives. Under the partial backfill alternative, the mine would be developed as under the proposed action and have the same surface disturbance footprint. However, at the end of the mining in the open pit, the open pit would be partially backfilled to eliminate the potential for a pit lake. The backfilling would commence in year 32 and be completed in 13 years. Under the off-site transfer of ore alternative, the ore processing facilities would include only the milling operations and production of the molybdenum sulfide concentrate. The molybdenum oxide and ferromolybdenum portions of the processing facility would not be constructed, and as a result, the surface disturbance footprint would be 20 acres less than under the proposed action. In addition, the leaching of the concentrate would likely not be done on site. The molybdenum sulfide concentrate would be transported to either an existing or new facility. Under the slower, longer project alternative, the production rate would be 50 percent of that for the proposed action. The preferred alternative is the proposed action with mitigation measures. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The open pit mine would allow the profitable extraction of molybdenite from public and private lands to the optimal extent possible and reclaim the Project Area in a manner that is environmentally responsible and in compliance with federal mining laws. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Surface disturbance would remove 8,318 acres of wildlife habitat with potential impacts to greater sage-grouse, golden eagles, and other migratory birds and raptors. Ground water drawdown is predicted to be more than ten feet for two perennial stream segments, at 22 perennial spring sites, and at the locations of seven wells. Vegetation, riparian corridors, and wet meadows could be impacted. Water quality could be affected by differential subsidence, erosion, and possible breaching of the North TSF. Approximately 14,204 acres of wild horse habitat would be removed and project operation would result in the loss of up to 781 animal unit months from grazing allotments within the fenced project area. Cultural resources including up to 100 prehistoric cultural sites would be impacted. The view from five key observation points and from the Pony Express National Historic Trail would be permanently modified. Demand for housing and public services is likely to exceed supply during construction and the early years of project operations. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) and General Mining Law of 1872 (30 U.S.C. 21 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110404, Volume 1--452 pages, Volume 2--430 pages, Appendices--150 pages, December 2, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Agency number: NV063-EISS07-019 KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Cultural Resources KW - Disposal KW - Erosion KW - Grazing KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Metals KW - Mineral Resources KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Municipal Services KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Roads KW - Sediment Control KW - Soil Pollution KW - Subsidence KW - Tailings KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources 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/921423218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.title=MOUNT+HOPE+PROJECT%2C+EUREKA+COUNTY+NEVADA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Battle Mountain, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 2, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-15 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Early famine warnings saving lives in Africa AN - 906958507 AB - Since networks of ground observation stations are often sparse or reported late in FEWS NET countries, satellite remote sensing of vegetation and rainfall fills in the gaps. Remote sensing from space allows for rapid, accurate assessments of a broad range of environmental and agricultural conditions. USGS scientists provide the technologies and expertise to support remote sensing for FEWS NET activities. JF - Western Farm Press AU - USGS AD - USGS Y1 - 2011/11/30/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Nov 30 CY - Clarksdale PB - Penton Media, Inc., Penton Business Media, Inc. SN - 15251217 KW - Agriculture UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/906958507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aabitrade&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Western+Farm+Press&rft.atitle=Early+famine+warnings+saving+lives+in+Africa&rft.au=USGS&rft.aulast=USGS&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Western+Farm+Press&rft.issn=15251217&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Central; ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Copyright - Copyright Penton Business Media, Inc. and Penton Media, Inc. Nov 30, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-15 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070517; 15150-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070515; 15150-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070515?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070511; 15150-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070511?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070508; 15150-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070504; 15150-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070504?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070500; 15150-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070500?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920070490; 15150-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920070490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920066456; 15149-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920066456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920066415; 15149-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920066415?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920066393; 15149-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920066393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920066308; 15149-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920066308?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920065827; 15150-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920065827?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920065790; 15150-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920065790?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920065771; 15150-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920065771?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920065754; 15150-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920065754?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - SUSQUEHANNA TO ROSELAND 500-KV TRANSMISSION LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, APPALACHIAN NATIONAL SCENIC TRAIL, DELAWARE WATER GAP NATIONAL RECREATION AREA, MIDDLE DELAWARE NATIONAL SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL RIVER, PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY. AN - 920065717; 15150-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a double-circuit transmission line across the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area (DEWA), Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River (MDSR), and Appalachian National Scenic Trail (APPA), from Berwick, Pennsylvania to Roseland, New Jersey is proposed. The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line (S-R Line) would replace the existing 230-kilovolt (kV) Bushkill-Kittatinny transmission line with a double-circuit line carrying both a 230kV line capable of being energized to 500kV and a new 500kV line. The independent regional power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, ordered the new line to prevent violations of national standards for the operation of the nations electric power grid. A consortium of PPL Electric Utilities Corporation and Public Service Electric and Gas Company, jointly known as the applicant, submitted the required applications and a preliminary construction plan to expand the size of the current right-of-way (ROW), access the ROW through existing natural and cultural areas, construct new and taller power line towers, and remove and replace the existing line. DEWA, MDSR, and APPA are three separate units managed by the National Park Service (NPS) and are central components of nature-based recreation for the New York City/Philadelphia metroplex. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to the natural and scenic beauty of the area, wildlife habitat and migratory birds, and human health and safety. Six alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are considered in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 2, which is the applicants proposed route, the permit would be approved, and the S-R Line would follow the corridor of the existing transmission line through DEWA, MDSR, and APPA for 4.3 miles, requiring an expansion of the cleared ROW (100 feet) to 200 to 380 feet in width. Alternative 2b is the applicants alternate route and would follow the same route as Alternative 2, but would be constructed within the existing ROW. Alternative 3 would cross 5.4 miles of NPS lands, and would require a ROW that ranges between 150 and 300 feet. Alternative 4 would require a ROW ranging from 200 to 300 feet, and would traverse approximately 1.5 miles of NPS lands. This alternative would not cross the MDSR. Alternative 5 would follow the same route as Alternative 4, but would not include a 0.6-mile stretch of NPS land found west of the Bushkill substation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the S-R Line would expand regional transmission capacity and maintain the reliability of the electric grid for millions of people in the Northeast region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Tower construction and grading would impact geological resources. Clearing would result in conversion of 3.2 to 23.9 acres of wetlands and loss of 74 to 240 acres of vegetation, including mature forest and special-status plant species. Impacts would result from habitat loss, habitat alteration, the continued maintenance of the ROW, the isolation of habitat patches, and direct mortality of wildlife. Presence of the line would impact special-status birds through collision and electrocution. Construction would impact one to three know archeological sites, 27 to 72 identified historic structures, and three to eight cultural landscapes. Changes to visual resources would be apparent from numerous vantage points and values for which the MDSR was designated would be perceptibly changed, affecting a relatively large area. The S-R Line could affect lands proposed to be a part of the Cherry Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which was established in October 2010 with the acquisition of the first 185 acres. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110394, Draft EIS--822 pages, Appendices--546 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Birds KW - Cultural Resources KW - Easements KW - Forests KW - Historic Sites KW - National Parks KW - Recreation Resources KW - Roads KW - Scenic Areas KW - Trails KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Appalachian National Scenic Trail KW - Delaware River KW - Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area KW - Middle Delaware National Scenic and Recreational River KW - New Jersey KW - Pennsylvania KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/920065717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.title=SUSQUEHANNA+TO+ROSELAND+500-KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+RIGHT-OF-WAY+AND+SPECIAL+USE+PERMIT%2C+APPALACHIAN+NATIONAL+SCENIC+TRAIL%2C+DELAWARE+WATER+GAP+NATIONAL+RECREATION+AREA%2C+MIDDLE+DELAWARE+NATIONAL+SCENIC+AND+RECREATIONAL+RIVER%2C+PENNSYLVANIA+AND+NEW+JERSEY.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Bushkill, Pennsylvania; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065587; 15149-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065587?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065539; 15149-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065492; 15149-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065492?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065384; 15149-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065384?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 72 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065196; 15149-3_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065196?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 71 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065152; 15149-3_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065152?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 70 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065102; 15149-3_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 69 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065051; 15149-3_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065051?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 59 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920065001; 15149-3_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920065001?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 58 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920064944; 15149-3_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920064944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 57 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920064880; 15149-3_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920064880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 56 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920064821; 15149-3_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920064821?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 920061496; 15156-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of a solar energy ground lease and associated agreements entered into by the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (the Tribe) for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic facility on federal trust lands of the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. K Road Moapa Solar LLC has entered into an agreement with the Tribe to lease land, up to 50 years, for a solar generating station with the potential to produce up to 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would require Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of a 0.5 mile right-of-way (ROW) across public lands adjoining the Moapa River Indian Reservation as well as the approval of a plan of development for a 5.5-mile electric transmission line and improvements to an existing utility access road within an existing 4,000-foot-wide utility corridor managed by the BLM. The ROW would be used to link the proposed solar generation facility to the existing Crystal substation on a transmission line with a rating up to 500 kilovolts (kV). The proposed project would be located adjacent to Interstate 15 approximately 30 miles north of Las Vegas. Key issues include those related to air quality, vegetation and rare plant species, ephemeral streams, desert tortoise, and cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the solar arrays, substation, and operations building and parking would be contained within a 2,000-acre solar facility footprint. The existing utility access road that originates from Las Vegas Boulevard and provides direct access to the Crystal substation would be the primary access route. Construction would be carried out in three phases of 100 MW to 150 MW each and all associated facilities would be completed during phase 1. The project would require 380 acre feet of water during the construction phase and no more than 20 to 40 acre feet per year for operations and maintenance. Under the reduced solar facility footprint alternative, only phases 1 and 2 would be completed and the final station capacity would be 250 MW of electricity. This alternative would also utilize an alternative corridor for the transmission line ROW. The alternative ROW would be a direct route to the Crystal substation and impact less overall acreage for construction; however, it would traverse an open area of the desert outside of the existing utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would generate substantial lease income for the Tribe over a 35-year period while occupying only three percent of the Reservation. Utility connection would provide an opportunity for the Tribe to further develop their travel plaza. The electricity generated by the solar station could be sold to the California and Nevada markets and would assist utilities in meeting their renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb up to 2,153 acres and potentially impact 8,153 acres out of 71,954 acres of the Reservation. Short-term air quality impacts would result from equipment and vehicle emissions. Significant and cumulative impacts to desert tortoise would result from harassment and loss of habitat and foraging area. Desert tortoise on-site would be relocated within the Reservation to prevent impacts; approximately 6,000 acres have been set aside by the Tribe for this purpose. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110400, Draft EIS--338 pages, Appendices--400 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Indian Reservations KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert 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/920061496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 50 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920061457; 15149-3_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920061457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 49 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920061407; 15149-3_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920061407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920061349; 15149-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920061349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920061270; 15149-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920061270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920061207; 15149-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920061207?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - K ROAD MOAPA SOLAR FACILITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 920058784; 15156-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Approval of a solar energy ground lease and associated agreements entered into by the Moapa Band of Paiute Indians (the Tribe) for the construction and operation of a solar photovoltaic facility on federal trust lands of the Moapa River Indian Reservation in Clark County, Nevada is proposed. K Road Moapa Solar LLC has entered into an agreement with the Tribe to lease land, up to 50 years, for a solar generating station with the potential to produce up to 350 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The project would require Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of a 0.5 mile right-of-way (ROW) across public lands adjoining the Moapa River Indian Reservation as well as the approval of a plan of development for a 5.5-mile electric transmission line and improvements to an existing utility access road within an existing 4,000-foot-wide utility corridor managed by the BLM. The ROW would be used to link the proposed solar generation facility to the existing Crystal substation on a transmission line with a rating up to 500 kilovolts (kV). The proposed project would be located adjacent to Interstate 15 approximately 30 miles north of Las Vegas. Key issues include those related to air quality, vegetation and rare plant species, ephemeral streams, desert tortoise, and cumulative impacts from projects in the vicinity. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action, the solar arrays, substation, and operations building and parking would be contained within a 2,000-acre solar facility footprint. The existing utility access road that originates from Las Vegas Boulevard and provides direct access to the Crystal substation would be the primary access route. Construction would be carried out in three phases of 100 MW to 150 MW each and all associated facilities would be completed during phase 1. The project would require 380 acre feet of water during the construction phase and no more than 20 to 40 acre feet per year for operations and maintenance. Under the reduced solar facility footprint alternative, only phases 1 and 2 would be completed and the final station capacity would be 250 MW of electricity. This alternative would also utilize an alternative corridor for the transmission line ROW. The alternative ROW would be a direct route to the Crystal substation and impact less overall acreage for construction; however, it would traverse an open area of the desert outside of the existing utility corridor. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would generate substantial lease income for the Tribe over a 35-year period while occupying only three percent of the Reservation. Utility connection would provide an opportunity for the Tribe to further develop their travel plaza. The electricity generated by the solar station could be sold to the California and Nevada markets and would assist utilities in meeting their renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would disturb up to 2,153 acres and potentially impact 8,153 acres out of 71,954 acres of the Reservation. Short-term air quality impacts would result from equipment and vehicle emissions. Significant and cumulative impacts to desert tortoise would result from harassment and loss of habitat and foraging area. Desert tortoise on-site would be relocated within the Reservation to prevent impacts; approximately 6,000 acres have been set aside by the Tribe for this purpose. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110400, Draft EIS--338 pages, Appendices--400 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Indian Reservations KW - Roads KW - Solar Energy KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Mojave Desert 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/920058784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%2C+CLARK+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=K+ROAD+MOAPA+SOLAR+FACILITY%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 46 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920058503; 15149-3_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920058503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 45 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920058401; 15149-3_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920058401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 44 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920058232; 15149-3_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920058232?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 31 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920058034; 15149-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920058034?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920057928; 15149-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920057928?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920057784; 15149-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920057784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920055423; 15149-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920055423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920055309; 15149-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920055309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920055193; 15149-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920055193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 64 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054562; 15149-3_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 54 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054508; 15149-3_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 54 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 63 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054503; 15149-3_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 62 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054451; 15149-3_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 62 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054451?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 53 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054436; 15149-3_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 61 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054395; 15149-3_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054395?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054362; 15149-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054362?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 52 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054346; 15149-3_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 60 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054322; 15149-3_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 51 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920054244; 15149-3_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920054244?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920052855; 15149-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920052855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920052766; 15149-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920052766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920052709; 15149-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920052709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920052632; 15149-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920052632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 68 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920051243; 15149-3_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920051243?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 67 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920051177; 15149-3_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920051177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 66 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920051109; 15149-3_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920051109?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 65 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920051041; 15149-3_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920051041?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 36 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920049004; 15149-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920049004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 35 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920048978; 15149-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920048978?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 34 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920048942; 15149-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920048942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 33 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920048901; 15149-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920048901?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 42 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920047865; 15149-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 42 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920047865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 41 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920047784; 15149-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920047784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 40 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920047705; 15149-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920047705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 39 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920047623; 15149-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920047623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920046651; 15149-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920046651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920046578; 15149-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920046578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 72] T2 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 920046454; 15149-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/920046454?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-07 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BAKER FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BAKER, UNION, WALLOWA, MALHEUR, MORROW, AND UMATILLA COUNTIES, OREGON AND ASOTIN COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16382956; 15149 AB - PURPOSE: Alternatives for the planning and management of 428,425 surface acres and 3.7 million subsurface acres administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Baker Field Office in Baker, Union, Wallowa, Malheur, Morrow, and Umatilla counties in Oregon and Asotin County in Washington are proposed. The planning area encompasses 8.7 million acres of public and private lands and, when approved, this Resource Management Plan (RMP) will replace the Baker RMP of 1989. Major planning issues include land use, renewable energy development, transportation and access, and livestock grazing. Special management areas considered include wild and scenic rivers, wilderness study areas, areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs), research natural areas, national historic trails, backcountry byways, and lands with wilderness characteristics. This draft EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, five action alternatives and one sub-alternative. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, emphasizes adaptive management to achieve long-term ecosystem health and resiliency while providing for a variety of resource uses. Restoration of Wyoming big sagebrush and riparian habitats would be emphasized in areas where analysis has shown a degraded condition. A broad use of tools would be available for resource restoration and stabilization, including biological, chemical, mechanical, prescribed fire, and natural processes. Right-of-way development, which includes energy development, would face moderate restrictions and mineral withdrawal would be pursued on 20,096 acres. Areas open to cross-country motorized use would decrease from 287,611 acres to 4,918 acres, while areas closed to motorized use would increase from 3,594 acres to 83,214 acres. Closed areas would include 13,223 acres managed to protect wilderness characteristics and eight existing and four newly proposed ACECs. Areas where travel is limited to existing roads would increase from 138,042 acres to 340,293 acres. However, specific route designations would not be made until a travel management plan is completed. Alternative 2 emphasizes development, recreational opportunities, livestock grazing, timber harvest, and other resource uses for economic gain. Alternative 3 emphasizes recreational use and opportunities on public lands. Alternative 4 focuses on aggressive protection and restoration measures to maintain or enhance native vegetation, biodiversity, and connectivity. Alternative 5 focuses on allowing natural processes to take place and would limit the range of management tools available for resource restoration and stabilization and reduce or limit the range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. Alternative 5a incorporates the same management actions as Alternative 5 except that all allotments that are currently available to grazing would be closed when current permits expire and no further grazing of domestic livestock would be permitted throughout the life of the RMP. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would establish goals for resource management and identify management actions and allowable uses designed to achieve those goals. The RMP would also create a framework for developing subsequent detailed plans for specific resources and uses. The preferred alternative would provide for a wide range of activities that benefit local, regional, and national economies. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Grazing, recreation, and mineral exploration would result in the continued removal of vegetation, the spread of invasive weed species, and accelerated erosion, compaction and displacement of soils. Alterations could lead to decreased water availability, increased habitat fragmentation, changes in habitat and species composition, and direct loss of wildlife. Under all alternatives, cultural resources would continue to be affected with varying levels of impacts. Potential prohibitions restricting grazing and mining activities would impact local industry. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110393, Volume 1--536 pages, Volume 2--885 pages, Volume 3--414 pages, November 25, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Creeks 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 - Scenic Areas KW - Soils KW - Timber Management KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources Management KW - Water Resources Management KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Oregon 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/16382956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_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, Baker City, Oregon; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 25, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-02 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916071; 15147-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916071?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916064; 15147-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916057; 15147-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916040; 15147-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916024; 15147-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916016; 15147-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916008; 15147-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916008?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - HAWAII VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK PLAN FOR PROTECTING AND RESTORING NATIVE ECOSYSTEMS BY MANAGING NON-NATIVE UNGULATES, HAWAII COUNTY, HAWAII. AN - 918916000; 15147-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A plan to refine the strategies for managing non-native ungulates in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii County, Hawaii is proposed. Ungulates, or mammals with hooves, are an issue of concern throughout Hawaii because these are non-native species which have detrimental impacts on native diversity and ecosystems. Goats, European pigs, sheep, and cattle were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the late eighteenth century and have become feral. Mouflon sheep were introduced to Hawaii Island in the twentieth century as a game animal. Populations of non-native ungulates have proliferated in Hawaii because of an equable climate, abundant food sources, vegetation poorly adapted to herbivorous mammals, and lack of predators. Non-native ungulates cause loss of vegetation, wildlife habitat degradation, and population decline for native Hawaiian species. Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has been addressing populations of non-native species, including ungulates, since the 1920s. However, the park's most recent EIS addressing non-native ungulate control was completed 30 years ago. The strategy included the use of boundary and internal fences to isolate populations, removal of individuals at greater rates than they can be replenished by reproduction and ingress, boundary fence inspection and maintenance, and monitoring and removal to prevent population increases. This draft EIS analyzes the No Action Alternative and four action alternatives for managing non-native ungulates to protect and restore native ecosystems. Under Alternative A (No Action), existing management practices would be followed, including the use of fencing, and the use of volunteers in direct reduction with firearms. Under Alternative B, all aspects of the current management program would be retained, including the use of fencing and volunteers. However, as with all action alternatives, the management plan would include a defined population objective of zero or as low as practicable in managed areas, and a systematic progression of management phases, monitoring, and considerations for the use of management tools. Under Alternative C, the park would investigate the expansion and enhancement of existing lethal removal techniques, and volunteers would not be used in any ungulate management actions. All elements under Alternative C would be implemented with the goal of providing the most efficient and cost-effective methods of ungulate management. Under Alternative D, which is the preferred alternative, management would rely primarily on lethal techniques similar to Alternative C, but non-lethal techniques such as relocation could also be considered. Qualified volunteers could be used for a variety of management actions, including ground shooting. Alternative E would involve the same management techniques as Alternative D, and although qualified volunteers would be used, they would not participate in ground shooting. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed plan would support long-term ecosystem protection, recovery and restoration of native vegetation and other natural resources, and preservation of cultural resources. Alternative D would provide the greatest flexibility of management techniques. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Short- and long-term minor to moderate impacts on wilderness would result from fences, helicopter work and ground activities related to removal efforts and fence construction and maintenance. Short-term moderate adverse impacts to soundscapes would result from the use of firearms, vehicles, helicopters, and fence maintenance equipment. Use of volunteers for ground shooting in additional areas and use of relocation could reduce efficiency and delay achieving desired conditions. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110390, 454 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Cultural Resources KW - Helicopters KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Pest Control KW - National Parks KW - Noise Assessments KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Hawaii KW - Hawaii Volcanoes National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/918916000?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, National Park Service, Hawaii National Park, Hawaii; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-02-01 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YAKIMA RIVER BASIN INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN, BENTON, KITTITAS, KLICKITAT AND YAKIMA COUNTIES, WASHINGTON. AN - 916835784; 15146 AB - PURPOSE: The Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan is proposed as a comprehensive approach to water resources and ecosystem restoration improvements in the Yakima River basin of south-central Washington. The basin encompasses 6,155 square miles and includes portions of Benton, Kittitas, Klickitat, and Yakima counties. The Bureau of Reclamation operates the Yakima Project to achieve specific purposes: irrigation water supply; flood control; power generation; and instream flows for fish, wildlife, and recreation. Six irrigation divisions provide water to about 450,000 irrigated acres and the storage division is composed of five major reservoirs with a total capacity of about one million acre-feet. Other project features include five diversion dams, 420 miles of canals, 1,697 miles of laterals, 30 pumping plants, 144 miles of drains, two power plants, plus fish passage and protection facilities constructed throughout the project. The current infrastructure has not been capable of consistently meeting aquatic resource demands for fish and wildlife habitat, dry-year irrigation demands, and municipal water supply demands. Anadromous and resident fish populations are seriously depleted due to dams and other obstructions, degraded riparian habitat and floodplain functions, and altered streamflows. Demand for irrigation water exceeds supply in dry and drought years, leading to severe rationing for junior water rights holders. The proposed integrated plan includes seven elements: reservoir fish passage, structural and operational changes to existing facilities, surface water storage, groundwater storage, habitat/watershed protection and enhancement, enhanced water conservation, and market reallocation. The combination of projects and actions has been optimized during nearly three years of discussion with the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Workgroup which is comprised of representatives from the Yakama Indian Nation, irrigation districts, environmental organizations, and federal, state, county, and city governments. The new plan revives a proposal to build the 450-foot-tall Wymer Dam, creating a 162,500-acre-foot off-channel reservoir on Lmuma Creek which would be filled by a pumping plant with water from the Yakima River during high flows. An average of 82,500 acre-feet of its capacity would be used to improve stream flows. The plan also revives options: to replace Bumping Lake Dam on the Bumping River with a new dam downstream, increasing its reservoir capacity to 190,000 acre-feet from 33,700 acre-feet; and to build a five-mile pipeline to carry water from Keechelus Reservoir to Kachess Reservoir to reduce flows, improve habitat during high flows, and provide water storage for downstream needs. In addition, the plan proposes constructing a new outlet in Kachess Dam that would be 80 feet lower than the existing outlet, making it possible to withdraw another 200,000 acre-feet of currently inactive storage from the reservoir on the upper Yakima River. Two options are being considered for that project, a gravity-flow tunnel or a pipeline and pump station. Other plan proposals include: modifying spillway gates on Cle Elum Dam to raise its reservoir three feet, increasing available storage by 14,600 acre-feet; modifying Kittitas Reclamation District irrigation canals on the Yakima River to reduce leakage and allow greater flexibility in water supply management; improving Wapatox Canal to allow more efficient distribution of water; studying using pumps for an inter-basin exchange of water with the Columbia River Basin; and construction of fish passages at Cle Elum, Bumping Lake, Keechelus, Kachess, and Tieton dams and improvement of fish passage at Clear Lake Dam on the Tieton River. The integrated plan would be implemented over a period of time ranging from two to 20 years depending on the availability of funding. This draft programmatic EIS examines the proposed integrated water resource management plan alternative as well as a No Action Alternative, under which some of the plans might be implemented piecemeal or not at all. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would restore ecological functions in the Yakima River system and provide more reliable and sustainable water resources for the health of the riverine environment, and for agricultural, municipal, and domestic needs. Fish passage and habitat/watershed enhancements would provide further benefits for fish and wildlife in the basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities would cause erosion, sedimentation and temporary habitat disturbance. There would be few long-term adverse effects excepting habitat losses and shoreline recreational losses at the enlarged Bumping Lake Reservoir and new Wymer Reservoir. The new plan would further reduce the water used for generation at the Roza and Chandler hydroelectric plants, cutting annual generation to 82,000 megawatt-hours from 107,000 megawatt-hours. LEGAL MANDATES: Hoover Power Plan Act of 1984, Public Law 96-162, and Public Law 103-434. JF - EPA number: 110389, 577 pages, November 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Canals KW - Dams KW - Fish KW - Floodplains KW - Irrigation KW - Pipelines KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Water Storage KW - Water Supply KW - Watersheds KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Yakima River KW - Hoover Power Plan Act of 1984, Compliance KW - Public Law 96-162, Project Authorization KW - Public Law 103-434, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/916835784?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_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 the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima, Washington; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-20 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565899; 15138-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565899?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 11 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917565476; 15139-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565476?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565280; 15138-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565271; 15138-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565271?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565264; 15138-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565264?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565255; 15138-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565246; 15138-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565236; 15138-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565236?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565227; 15138-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565227?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565220; 15138-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565220?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 4 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917565198; 15139-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 3 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917565193; 15139-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565189; 15138-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 2 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917565188; 15139-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565188?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 1 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917565180; 15139-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917565180?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565128; 15138-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565120; 15138-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565120?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565112; 15138-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565112?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565105; 15138-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - QUARTZSITE SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT AND PROPOSED YUMA FIELD OFFICE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT, LA PAZ COUNTY, ARIZONA. AN - 917565100; 15138-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a 100-megawatt, solar-powered electrical generation facility in an undeveloped area of the Sonoran Desert in La Paz County, Arizona is proposed. Quartzsite Solar Energy, LLC (QSE) has submitted an application to the Western Area Power Administration to interconnect the concentrating solar power plant to Westerns transmission system at the Bouse-Kofa 161-kilovolt (kV) transmission line. In addition, QSE has submitted a right-of-way application to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the project facility to be constructed on a total of 1,675 acres of federal land. An amendment to the BLM's Yuma Resource Management Plan would modify visual restrictions for approximately 6,800 acres in order to allow characteristics that are being requested for the energy project. The proposed generation plant, power line and ancillary facilities would be located on the east side of State Route 95 (SR 95) approximately 10 miles north of Quartzsite, Arizona. Project components would include: a 653-foot-tall central receiver and solar collecting tower, up to 17,500 heliostats (mirrors), a conventional steam turbine generator, insulated storage tanks for hot and cold liquid (molten) salt, evaporation ponds, a switchyard, onsite transformers and 161/230-kV electrical substation, a 1.5-mile long 161/230-kV overhead transmission line, a 1.5-mile long overhead line to provide auxiliary power to the project area, an access road from SR 95 to the solar field, water wells and a water supply pipeline. Operational water requirements for the proposed dry-cooled plant would be 200 acre-feet per year. In addition to the applicant's proposed project, this draft EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative and a hybrid-cooled alternative with operational water requirements in the range of 500 to 700 acre-feet per year. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed facility would be capable of producing 450 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy annually and would contribute much needed on-peak power to the electrical grid that serves the western United States. Construction is expected to provide an average of 280 full-time jobs over a 30-month span. Operation is expected to employ 47 full-time workers. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would increase the potential for soil erosion and result in the loss of up to 1,675 acres of wildlife habitat, including 51.5 acres of moderately suitable habitat for the Mojave fringe-toed lizard. The proposed facility would introduce a new visual element to the landscape and would degrade the desired experience of visitors to wilderness and scenic areas. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110381, 562 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DOE/EIS-0440 KW - Desert Land KW - Electric Power KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Transmission Lines KW - Turbines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Resources KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - Sonoran 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/917565100?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Energy, Western Area Power Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOE N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 10 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917564668; 15139-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 9 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917564667; 15139-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 8 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917564666; 15139-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564666?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 7 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917564665; 15139-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564665?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 6 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917564664; 15139-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. [Part 5 of 11] T2 - OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM: 2012-2017, WESTERN, CENTRAL AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO AND BEAUFORT SEA, CHUKCHI SEA, AND COOK INLET, ALASKA. AN - 917564663; 15139-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Fifteen oil and gas lease sales in six Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) planning areas in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and offshore Alaska during the period 2012-2017 are proposed. Five area-wide lease sales each would be held in the Central and Western GOM Planning Areas, with one to two lease sales in the extreme western portion of the Eastern GOM Planning Area. Scheduled in the Alaska Region would be one sale with two whaling deferrals in the Beaufort Sea Planning Area, one sale with a 25-mile buffer in the Chukchi Sea Planning Area, and one special interest sale in the Cook Inlet Planning Area. An updated oil and gas strategy for the OCS continued a moratorium for areas in the Eastern GOM and eliminated the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic planning areas from consideration for potential sales and development through the 2017 planning horizon. Oil and gas activities may occur on OCS leases after a lease sale pursuant to the proposed action, and these activities may extend over a period of 40 to 50 years. These activities may include seismic surveys; drilling oil and natural gas exploration and production wells; installation and operation of offshore platforms and pipelines, onshore pipelines, and support facilities; and transporting oil using ships or pipelines. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 8) are considered in this programmatic draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative 1), a schedule would be established and used as a basis for considering where and when leasing might be appropriate in the six planning areas over the five-year period. Alternatives 2 through 7 each exclude one of the six planning areas included in the proposed action from the program. In addition to evaluating the impacts of routine operations and accidental oil spills, this programmatic draft EIS also considers how climate change may affect baseline conditions of resources over the 40 to 50 year period during which oil and gas production could occur following lease sales under the program. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A schedule of lease sales would best meet national energy needs for the five-year period following its approval by balancing the potential for adverse environmental and societal impacts with the beneficial impacts of the discovery and development of oil and gas. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Disturbance of the seafloor would result in moderate impacts to benthic habitats and invertebrates. Routine operations could result in minor to moderate, localized, short-term impacts to water quality, air quality, and the acoustic environment. Coastal and estuarine habitats could incur minor to moderate impacts from pipeline landfall and construction, maintenance dredging of inlets and channels, and vessel traffic. Potential impacts to marine mammals include noise disturbance from seismic surveys, vessels, helicopters, construction and operation of platforms, and removal of platforms with explosives; potential collision with vessels; and exposures to discharges and wastes. Five species of sea turtles that occur in the three GOM planning areas could be impacted. Accidental oil spills could affect benthic, pelagic, coastal, and estuarine habitat and pose the greatest threat to marine and coastal birds. American crocodile could be affected in the event there is a very large oil spill that reaches the southern Florida coast. Operations could have minor impacts on subsistence, commercial, and recreational fisheries. Any adverse impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources could have disproportionate impacts on Alaska Native populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1311 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110382, 1,492 pages, November 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: OCS EIS/EA BOEM 2011-001 KW - Birds KW - Climatologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Continental Shelves KW - Drilling KW - Employment KW - Estuaries KW - Exploration KW - Fisheries KW - Leasing KW - Marine Mammals KW - Marine Systems KW - Natural Gas KW - Noise KW - Oil Production KW - Oil Spill Analyses KW - Pipelines KW - Recreation Resources KW - Seismic Surveys KW - Subsistence KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Alabama KW - Alaska KW - Beaufort Sea KW - Chukchi Sea KW - Florida KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Texas KW - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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 Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 26 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564151; 15128-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 11 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564143; 15128-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 10 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564137; 15128-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 9 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564132; 15128-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564132?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 8 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917564129; 15128-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917564129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 25 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563902; 15128-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 24 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563898; 15128-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563898?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 23 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563895; 15128-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 19 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563883; 15128-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 18 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563880; 15128-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 17 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563877; 15128-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 16 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563875; 15128-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563875?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 15 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563872; 15128-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563872?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 14 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563869; 15128-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563869?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 13 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563867; 15128-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 6 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563862; 15128-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563862?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 5 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563857; 15128-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563857?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 917563723; 15130-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Eight management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for up to 100 commercially guided wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7 would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. Alternative 8 is the preferred alternative and would implement a one-year transition, allowing OSV use in the park during the 2011/2012 season at the same levels and with the same requirements and restrictions as the 2009/2010 - 2010/2011 interim regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the one-year transition portion of the draft EIS preferred alternative (Alternative 7) would allow additional time to complete analyses of the long-term plan and to address additional questions and options raised by the 59,000 public comments received. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110373, 688 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 917563720; 15130-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Eight management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for up to 100 commercially guided wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7 would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. Alternative 8 is the preferred alternative and would implement a one-year transition, allowing OSV use in the park during the 2011/2012 season at the same levels and with the same requirements and restrictions as the 2009/2010 - 2010/2011 interim regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the one-year transition portion of the draft EIS preferred alternative (Alternative 7) would allow additional time to complete analyses of the long-term plan and to address additional questions and options raised by the 59,000 public comments received. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110373, 688 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 917563708; 15130-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Eight management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for up to 100 commercially guided wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7 would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. Alternative 8 is the preferred alternative and would implement a one-year transition, allowing OSV use in the park during the 2011/2012 season at the same levels and with the same requirements and restrictions as the 2009/2010 - 2010/2011 interim regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the one-year transition portion of the draft EIS preferred alternative (Alternative 7) would allow additional time to complete analyses of the long-term plan and to address additional questions and options raised by the 59,000 public comments received. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110373, 688 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 917563706; 15130-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Eight management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for up to 100 commercially guided wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7 would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. Alternative 8 is the preferred alternative and would implement a one-year transition, allowing OSV use in the park during the 2011/2012 season at the same levels and with the same requirements and restrictions as the 2009/2010 - 2010/2011 interim regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the one-year transition portion of the draft EIS preferred alternative (Alternative 7) would allow additional time to complete analyses of the long-term plan and to address additional questions and options raised by the 59,000 public comments received. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110373, 688 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 917563702; 15130-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Eight management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for up to 100 commercially guided wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7 would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. Alternative 8 is the preferred alternative and would implement a one-year transition, allowing OSV use in the park during the 2011/2012 season at the same levels and with the same requirements and restrictions as the 2009/2010 - 2010/2011 interim regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the one-year transition portion of the draft EIS preferred alternative (Alternative 7) would allow additional time to complete analyses of the long-term plan and to address additional questions and options raised by the 59,000 public comments received. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110373, 688 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_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, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 4 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563285; 15128-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563285?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 3 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563281; 15128-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563281?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 2 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563277; 15128-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. [Part 1 of 26] T2 - ALTON COAL TRACT LEASE BY APPLICATION, KANE COUNTY, UTAH. AN - 917563274; 15128-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The leasing and mining of federal coal reserves on 3,581 acres of public and private land near the town of Alton in Kane County, Utah are proposed. Alton Coal Development, LLC submitted a Lease by Application (LBA) in November 2004 to mine the tract using primarily surface-mining methods. As reconfigured by the Bureau of Land Management, the tract contains 44.9 to 49.1 million tons of recoverable coal reserves. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under the proposed action (Alternative B), a competitive sale would be held and a lease issued for federal coal in the tract. Recoverable portions of in-place coal reserves would be mined over 25 years using surface-mining methods where the depth of overburden would be 200 to 300 feet, and underground methods (development mining, auger mining, highwall mining, longwall mining, and/or room and pillar mining) where the depth of overburden exceeds 200 to 300 feet. Approximately two million tons of coal per year would be mined once topsoil stockpiling and initial overburden removal has occurred. Reclamation would be concurrent with mining over the course of the estimated 25-year mine life and would be followed by a potential 10-year reclamation and revegetation monitoring period. Under Alternative C, the Alton Coal Tract would be modified to exclude the northwest portion of the tract located near the town of Alton. Further, certain mining activities in the southern portion of the tract would be subject to seasonal restrictions to reduce impacts to the local greater sage-grouse population. The modified tract would be offered for lease at a sealed-bid, competitive lease sale, subject to standard and special lease stipulations. The tract configuration under Alternative C includes an estimated 38.1 to 42.3 million tons of recoverable coal that would be mined over 21 years. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The leasing and subsequent mining and sale of federal coal resources would help meet the nation's current and future electrical energy and industrial needs. The local economy would benefit from an increase in jobs, income, and additional taxes, fees, and payments. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Both action alternatives would involve: large-scale removal, stockpiling, and replacement of soils; removal and loss of function of wetlands and impacts to riparian areas; and wildlife habitat fragmentation, alteration, and displacement. Underground methods would cause subsidence on portions of the tract. Emissions of criteria air pollutants and hazardous air pollutants would occur as a result of mining and transporting coal. Robinson Creek would be relocated, potentially affecting stream function and water quality. Lands within the tract would be unavailable for grazing and recreation. Archaeological sites, Native American cultural properties, the Panguitch Historic District, and the Utah Heritage Highway 89/Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area would be subject to adverse effects. Commuter and coal truck traffic through Cedar City, Hatch, and Panguitch would increase. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (P.L. 94-377) and Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110371, Draft EIS--473 pages, Appendices--406 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES-11-51 KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Coal KW - Creeks KW - Cultural Resources KW - Grazing KW - Leasing KW - Mining KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Soils KW - Subsidence KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Utah KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, Compliance KW - Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/917563274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-11-04&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=ALTON+COAL+TRACT+LEASE+BY+APPLICATION%2C+KANE+COUNTY%2C+UTAH.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Kanab, Utah; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-25 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK DRAFT WINTER USE PLAN, IDAHO, MONTANA, AND WYOMING. AN - 915373357; 15130 AB - PURPOSE: A long-term plan to manage winter use and access and to address the issue of oversnow vehicle (OSV) use in the interior of Yellowstone National Park, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming is proposed. Winter use in Yellowstone National Park has been the subject of debate for more than 75 years. Historically, the increase in the use of OSVs caused air and noise pollution, conflicts with other users, and harassment of wildlife. As a result of litigation and court order, the legal authority for OSV use (snowmobiles and snowcoaches) at Yellowstone expired March 15, 2011. Eight management alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the environmentally preferred alternative, would not permit public OSV use in Yellowstone, but would allow for approved non-motorized use to continue. Alternative 2 would manage OSV use at the same levels as the 2009 interim rule (up to 318 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 3 would allow for snowmobile and snowcoach use levels to increase to the levels set forth in the 2004 plan (up to 720 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches per day). Alternative 4 would allow for up to 100 commercially guided wheeled vehicles, 110 snowmobiles, and 30 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 5 would initially allow for the same level of use as Alternative 2, but would provide for a transition to snowcoaches only if user demand is present or at the discretion of the park superintendent. Upon complete transition, there would be zero snowmobiles and up to 120 snowcoaches per day. Alternative 6 would provide for use levels that vary each day, with a seasonal limit of 32,000 snowmobiles and 4,600 snowcoaches, and a daily limit of up to 540 snowmobiles and 78 snowcoaches. Up to 25 percent of snowmobile permits under Alternative 6 would be for unguided or non-commercially guided use. Alternative 7 would also allow for variable use levels throughout the season, with snowmobile use ranging from 110 to 330 snowmobiles per day and snowcoach use ranging from 30 to 80 vehicles per day. Alternative 8 is the preferred alternative and would implement a one-year transition, allowing OSV use in the park during the 2011/2012 season at the same levels and with the same requirements and restrictions as the 2009/2010 - 2010/2011 interim regulation. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the one-year transition portion of the draft EIS preferred alternative (Alternative 7) would allow additional time to complete analyses of the long-term plan and to address additional questions and options raised by the 59,000 public comments received. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Under the preferred plan, winter use levels would be similar to those currently occurring and OSV use would continue to generate emissions and noise in the interior of the park. Elk and bison would continue to be subject to encounters and conflicts with OSV users. Canada lynx, gray wolf, wolverine, bald eagle, and trumpeter swan could be impacted by OSV use including noise and human presence. Visitors could be exposed to emissions and noise, while workers would continue to be exposed to hazardous conditions at Sylvan Pass, an avalanche prone area. LEGAL MANDATES: National Park Service Organic Act of 1916 (16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 110373, 688 pages, November 4, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Air Quality KW - Cultural Resources KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Motor Vehicles KW - National Parks KW - Noise KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Regulations KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - Wildlife KW - Idaho KW - Montana KW - Wyoming KW - Yellowstone National Park KW - National Park Service Organic Act of 1916, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/915373357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_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, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 4, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2012-01-12 ER -